Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1166#User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.

(Initiated 20 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:True North Centre for Public Policy#Request for comment on opening sentence

(Initiated 153 days ago on 26 April 2024) RfC template only added on 27 April and may not be properly transcluded. Still open because it may not be showing anywhere. Grateful if a neutral and experienced closer could take a look at sorting this out. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: What do you mean by "may not be properly transcluded"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I could not see that it was ever listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. But then, on the other hand, I was perhaps not looking right. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See Legobot's contribs from the appropriate period. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 115 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 95 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)

Had I not !voted, I would probably close this with "why in all hell did you think opening an RfC with nine options, many of which are very similar, would be a good way to find consensus?!?". We probably need a guideline advising against such inane choices. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

• Doing - I'm not an admin, but I think I can get a handle on this one. A read over does suggest some trends... Fieari (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

   Done Fieari (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 80 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)

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

(Initiated 63 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Kamala_Harris#RFC:_How_to_refer_to_the_African_ancestry_of_Kamala_Harris?

(Initiated 56 days ago on 31 July 2024) Requesting closure on this discussion which has not had a new comment in a week when excluding its brief archival. The discussion is lengthy and split into multiple sections. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

•  Done.—S Marshall T/C 08:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

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

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

•  Done Anomie⚔ 01:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals#RFC: Should we add a section about proposals for adding prominent links to crisis hotlines at the tops of articles?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Algeria#RfC_on_ethnic_groups_in_the_infobox

(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 August 2024) Discussion slowed, ready for closing. 04:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	5	38	43
TfD	0	0	1	7	8
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	1	2	3
RfD	0	0	0	68	68
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

(Initiated 36 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Endings by year

(Initiated 33 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 17#Category:Empirical evidence

(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Microsoft Edge#Split article into old EdgeHTML Edge and the current Chromium Edge

(Initiated 301 days ago on 30 November 2023) Discussion died down for one month or more. Closure long overdue. --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 294 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 143 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 121 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 119 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 109 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 88 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 80 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 40 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 31 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 30 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

(Initiated 20 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Requested move 6 September 2024

(Initiated 19 days ago on 6 September 2024). Discussion has died down and last vote comment was a week ago. Raladic (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024

(Initiated 10 days ago on 15 September 2024) Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Closers wanted for WP:V RfC

Hi. The RfC regarding the lead section of WP:V ended a little over a month ago. There was an agreement that it would be closed by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite and User:HJ Mitchell. However, this has not happened because of the low availability of two of those.

Would anyone be interested in joining the process so that it can get back on track?

There is an existing understanding that closers should be three in number, be admins in good standing, not have participated in discussions leading up to this point and not have commented elsewhere in such a way that their impartiality might be questioned.

It's a responsibility to be taken seriously. A minor change is at stake, but it is one about which there are strongly-held views. It's also the RfC with the highest ever level of participation on Wikipedia. So there is a lot to read and it will probably not be an open and shut case.

Any takers? If so, please put yourself forward by making your mark below. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tempted. Am I wrong, or is that RFC archived twice on that page? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that will make it twice as much work. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be persuaded. Depends how urgent it is, as there's a lot to read and I'm busy this weekend. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is urgent is the sense that a decision is needed by 10 am. But I think editors want to know that it is moving in a forward direction. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to step in if the two above me cannot or someone below me has more enthusiasm.--v/r - TP 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I could do it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe SlimVirgin could work with you. Leaky Caldron 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have plenty of time starting Monday and am willing to wade through the stuff. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have the time to do it justice before Monday anyway so that suits me. If Worm will join us, we'll have the requisite three admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of the three of you, that should be good. But can I suggest making yourselves known on the WP:V talkpage first? There has been a little concern there about the risk of a runaway train of biased and incompetent admins. Yes, its a tautological concept. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• just checking but are the victims... er I mean volunteers familar with the term hospital pass?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If no one has mentioned it at the RfC by tomorrow, I'll mention it then. Lots of reading to do... yay! Worm^TT · (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We are playing rugby now? :P --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government: "A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the RFC on the "not truth" issue in the Verifiability policy text. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close a RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted." Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That proposal was pretty clearly rejected, Count Iblis -- taking the Rejected tag off is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to reflect current practice. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is my understanding that the permission class of a user that the Wikipedia community trusts to specifically judge consensus already exists. If we're going to limit this close to a certain class of editor based on permissions held why not entrust it to the people we already trust to make difficult decisions regarding consensus(send it to 'crat chat)?Crazynas ^t 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In no way is the above meant to disparage or attack the neutrality or objectiveness or ability to judge consensus of any of the administrators that have volunteered, more of a procedural question. Crazynas ^t 20:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding is correct, actually, Crazynas. Admins/bureaucrats don't have the exclusive privilege of closing RfCs. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I do understand that, which is why my second sentence was conditional. This is a question for this particular closure (and others of this nature) why we're limiting the close to a subset of editors that are not selected primarily for their ability to judge consensus when there already exists a usergroup that is scrutinized on their neutrality and ability to gauge consensus. (in other words, allow any editor in good standing to assist the close, or limit it to the well defined group of users that are promoted based on this specific type of trust to judge consensus). Crazynas ^t 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, actually, that makes sense, except bureaucrats do not present a very large pool. I think, in this particular case it is just a case of consensus, for better or worse, between involved editors that they wanted admins. --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and finish what I started on my userpage. I hope you all find it helpful in reaching a conclusion on the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Folks, we have what is one of the largest RFC's ever, and its about a month after comments were closed it looks like we don't even have the closers picked. May I suggest that we create the short list of potential folks here, vett them not only for having no relevant issues, but also for anything that someone could successfully pretend is a relevant issue. And if that doesn't get it down to three, flip a coin and pick three and then roll. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my naiveness, I'm listing the above volunteers and the original three, so other folks can starting paring or adding to the list, please consider this to be editable (not like a part of my post). North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• HJMitchell
• Black Kite
• NewYorkBrad
• Ultraexactzz
• Worm
• Regentspark
• SarekOfVulcan
• Cla68

I interpret the above discussion to mean that the "new team" of closers consists of HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned. Isn't that correct? Neutron (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All three indicated that they would be willing... I would just like them to confirm that they are actually taking this on. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but I also said that I won't be up to it until Monday. I'll probably spend a good chunk of monday afternoon on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that people are in a super hurry, they just want to know that it is heading forward, which, right now means hearing a clear statement something like: "HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned are the trio that is or will soon be working on closing this" Can somebody say that? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to be more specific, can ALL of THEM say that? Neutron (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly reading through. I hereby commit to the trio of closers. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've scanned the discussion but won't be able to read it carefully till Monday. Since a Monday-Tuesday timetable seems acceptable, I too hereby commit to the trio of closers. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to Worm That Turned, RegentsPark and HJ Mitchell... it looks like we have our new "admin panel" in place. Hopefully it won't take yet another month... but we will be patient. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, am reading and writing right now - did I willingly volunteer for this :) --regentspark (comment) 14:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. About halfway through the poll responses and making notes, but have a long way to go. What on earth did I agree to this for ;) Worm^TT · (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, nothing bad's going to happen. The sudden disappearance of Black Kite and Newyorkbrad after they agreed to take on the task is almost certainly nothing more than a coincidence... --FormerIP (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Still reading. This is mighty interesting. Also, I have noticed this guy with sunglasses, mac, and hat pulled down over his eyes following me around. Just another coincidence, I guess :) --regentspark (comment) 16:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Struck myself from the list above -- <Leghorn>that was a joke, son.</Leghorn>--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of image compromise at Muhammad

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could try and close the image compromise discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. The exact section link is Talk:Muhammad/images#Proposed_image_solution, although there is other further discussion elsewhere on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd certainly hope no one claims that wall of text is a closable discussion. Hold an RfC or something, but that's just an argument that is difficult to parse and too long to follow. Voting is evil, but unorganized walls of text are worse. There is just no way outsiders to that discussion could possibly follow or comment intelligently on it without spending at least 30 minutes. It currently stands (if I counted correctly) at more than 31,000 words. That's a third of a novel. At most I'd hope it would be closed as "hold an RfC". Disclaimer/comment: I personally believe a handful of editors are creating these walls more-or-less on purpose in an attempt to get their way on censorship related issues. WP:NOT's talk page being a good example, with the pregnancy image debate being another one (but it at least was readable). Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Frankly, the discussion got trainwrecked by a couple editors (one on each side), and movement forward is unlikely as a result. An RfC would be pointless for the same reason. Resolute 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • • I don't have the time to read it all just now, and probably wouldn't if I did. You're talking about Ludwigs and whom? If you think they're an impediment to reaching a stable article, would you support an article ban for both? I find it impossible to discuss the topic with every thread being derailed into a battle of the egos. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
        • And Tarc. But remove the former, and you remove the latter as well. Ludwigs goes somewhere, repeats the same arguments he made 100 times already, and Tarc replies with the same rebuttal he made 100 times already. Ludwigs moves to the next forum, rinse, repeat. And voila, 500kb of "discussion". Resolute 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
          • My problem is not with Ludwigs' position - that it's a net negative for the encyclopedia to be gratuitously offending our readers - with which I agree, but with his style of argument, seemingly more intent on impressing posterity or silent watchers with his considerable eloquence and logical prowess than engaging and convincing his interlocutor. I thought you Erasorhead, Jayen, Mathsci and the others (excluding Alan, IP and Tarc) were working towards something there but once Ludwigs returned from his month away, the delicate and elegant resolution you'd proposed just got shoved aside while the various gladiators preened and posed. I don't think I've ever called for an article ban before but I'm seriously tempted here. I'll let Ludwigs know about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
            • While Ludwigs has definitely been annoying and over-argued, he has been prepared to compromise. I'm sorry but I strongly object to topic banning an editor who has behaved significantly better than the editors on the other side. If you want to do a two sided topic ban (so Alan, IP, Tarc and Ludwigs) I'm OK with that, and I'm OK with blocking whoever you think is the worst offender - and that isn't Ludwigs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I've thought about it some more, and I think this needs to go to Arbcom. They can look at the evidence and decide what to do with regards to topic bans. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I was hopeful that someone might try and close it, but fair enough. I thought it was a better option than escalation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is now at arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Muhammad_Images. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Who's got the popcorn contract for that monstrosity? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep? The discussion has been open 10 days.

I ask that the closer not be an arbitrator or arbitrator candidate as NWA.Rep (talk · contribs) is an arbitrator candidate.

I further ask that the closer not be a writer of an arbitrator voter guide because the user has said: "the lynch mob (namely the arbcom voters guide writers) wants me out of this project and are disgracefully trying to sneak this Mfd through when all the people who support it are the 'arbcom voter guide' writers". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If that guy manages to get elected to the ArbCom, it should be a cinch for me the next time I run for admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How about User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr, is their consensus to delete that too? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep/Andre DeAngelo Wallace Jr has been filed. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of VPR

Hi could you please review and close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#.22Blocked.22_template_tweak it's blocker for deployment. Petrb (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the thread needs closure per se. It's quite clear that there is consensus in support of the proposal. You now need to convince developers to turn it on.  Sandstein  17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a developer it can't be deployed if discussion isn't closed. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32819 Petrb (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is this procedure stated? Rmhermen (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Writing_an_extension_for_deployment Petrb (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about needing to close a discussion. Did I miss something? Rmhermen (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the request to close discussion is in bugzilla. Petrb (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's closed now. Feel free to implement. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag unblock request – December 2011

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

The community is currently rejecting the unblock request made by TreasuryTag, with over 80% (by quick looks) in opposition. No more piling on is needed. -- DQ (t) (e) 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

User:TreasuryTag has requested to be unblocked. I am taking no position on that, but per his request will copy the unblock request here for the community to discuss, as his previous declined unblock request was judged to be a community ban, and this is the venue for considering whether to rescind such bans. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been gone for more than two months now, and I daresay some people have noticed the peace and quiet broken only by occasional orchestrated assaults on the project!
Meanwhile, I've been racking up a lot of edits I want to make. Edits that need to be made. Not controversial; not deletion-related; not Doctor Who-related – completely free of the areas where I seem to have generated trouble in the past.
I understand that I caused a lot of problems, understand how it happened, and fully intend to stop it from happening again. I'm already topic-banned from initiating any sort of deletion for six months after being unblocked, so there can't be any issues in that department, and as I say, I've discovered new areas of editing to go into which are (a) away from my past fault-lines and (b) sorely in need of an experienced, good-faith editor like myself.
Please let me back in! Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This unblock request is so accomplished that I find it almost irresistible. Hans Adler 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I can resist it. A longer break will do wonders for TT's attitude when he returns. A thought: it might help his case if we could see some evidence of trouble-free contribution on another Wikimedia project. The block is not a global one across his unified account. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• One minor point on the phrasing of the copied-over statement, regarding: "Edits that need to be made". No, no edit "needs to be made"; we don't need any contributor, especially if they are unable to collaborate with other people. Having said that, I'm of two minds about the appeal. Two months is not very long, and I find it hard to believe that TT's combative attitude has vanished. His unblock statement is heartening, and suggests the break did him some good, but did it do him enough? If a little is good, more must be better: I'm not sure the break was long enough, but if TT (and everybody who comments here) thinks so then I don't see a problem with letting him return. He certainly did good work when he was around and tried to be professional. For the purposes of the closing administrator, this is a tentative support. AGK [•] 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock I've never wished to see TT blocked long-term, merely for him to stop being so gratuitously abrasive when there was no call for it. If he'd go along with that, I'd welcome him back. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support' The potential benefit of giving a second chance here far outweighs the potential discomforts of having to block him again if he doesn't deliver on his promises.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock he's done enough time and seems to have made significant progress of understanding the issues that caused the block and seems positive about avoiding them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think User:Worm That Turned is wiser than I am - so oppose per him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose (with regret) I was quite unimpressed when the last discussion was interpreted as a "de facto ban", something that appeared to come from left side and was unfair on TreasuryTag. I've had a couple of editors come to me and suggest that whilst they were opposing at the time, it was only for that specific discussion, and not for future ones. Having said that, I am not sure I can support an unblock of TreasuryTag, with no restrictions besides the topic ban. When HJ Mitchell unblocked him a few months ago, his restrictions were lax and TreasuryTag flouted them - I'm not sure that I believe he will not return to his old behaviour. Perhaps with mentoring or strongly enforced restrictions or even evidence that he has changed, I could support, but the unblock request does not persuade me. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Then if that were to happen again, we'd block him again. This small risk is worth taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• What about making a counter proposal that you could support ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would want to see someone actively working with TT, who could nip problems in the bud before they escalate. Depending on what the results of the ArbCom election are, I would be willing to do that - which I mentioned last week on my talk page. Otherwise, I'd like to see some evidence that he has changed, perhaps from work on another WMF project or a decent period where he accepts there is an issue. It's less than 2 months since the discussions died down, and from what I understand, he has appealled this block to a number of admins hoping one would endorse an unblock. Andy, I know reblocks are cheap, but if no one is watching him then I believe he is likely to cause too many problems. I find it telling that TreasuryTag is so desperate to come back to the encyclopedia, that he will not until the announcement of the ArbCom results (less than a week from the point he made this request). As such, I think he'd say anything that might persuade people to let him back in, and so unfortunately, I'm not willing to take his word on this matter. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose (also with regret). I've seen TT around a lot, and I fully acknowledge his great contributions and I really would like him back on the project. But with his extensive history of abrasive and aggressive confrontation with others, and the past breaking of promises, I could only support an unblock with some sort of reasonably strict mentorship, restrictions, or other supervisory plan in place - and I do hope that can be achieved in the not-too-distant future -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment one has to wonder if we need an unblock option for 1 day and so on. So that we can give an editor a chance to demonstrate that they are reformed. They can ask for longer periods each time and maybe get back to normal status. Probably not worth the effort to implement, but I think the concept still makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wouldn't re-blocking an editor that has only been productive since their unblock just be making a point?Crazynas ^t 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Probation" is a common practice in the real world. The point is that it is much easier to reinstate the e.g. block if the terms are violated; starting over from scratch is not required. Setting up such a thing might be good. From their wording where "you need me" is emphasized (including in the selection of a link) the and "I've changed" is barely there, I'm guessing that they they have not changed much, but that would be a way to find out, and possibly a way to modify their behavior. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I understood Vegaswikian's proposal as saying that just like a user can be blocked for a specific amount of time, so that they are automatically unblocked afterwards, we might want to unblock a user with an automatic block later on. It would be even better if we coud set this up periodically, so that e.g. an editor would be allowed to edit only 2 hours per day or so. I suspect that many of the behavioural difficulties on this site have to do with its addictive nature. This is a way in which many blocked editors would still be able to contribute productively, and I think quite a few editors who would otherwise start full-time socking might be led to find a better real-life/Wikipedia balance instead. Hans Adler 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea.  Here is a variation: a limit of edits to two pages in a rolling 24-hour period.  That would be easy to implement in software, and should have the effect of increasing the quality of edits to any given page, and should have an effect of long-term behavior change.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  While on the one hand, the behavior here in making an unblock request is obsessing and bounds testing; fuel to the fire is the vagueness of the indef block, which must be frustrating.  Suggest changing the indef block to a two-month block to be followed by the start of the six-month topic ban.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock- basically because if this is opposed then we might as well add the following to the indef blocking policy: "An indefinite block is permanent and irreversible, with no possibility of appeal, under any circumstances, ever." What we have here is an editor who has contributed a lot of good stuff to the encyclopedia and can certainly continue to, but who has got himself in trouble by being obnoxiously opinionated and combative. After two months out of the game there is strong evidence of a change in outlook and a commitment to stay away from the areas that got him into trouble. What more can be demanded? Further, the long and messy discussion that led to the indef block was vague, confusing and frustrating to all involved, and I think indef blocks with a lingering air of dodgyness should be easier to reverse than clear-cut ones. If we unblock, there are two things that could happen. Either TT stays out of trouble, in which case we gain a productive editor, or he reverts back to being objectionable, in which case he can't do much harm because everyone will be watching him. Unblocking has only upside and no downside. If we refuse to unblock, TT's gone for good and it makes a joke of principles like WP:OFFER and "indef != permanent"- only downside and no upside. Thanks. Reyk _YO! 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  Reyk, the spirit of WP:OFFER is that when some time has passed, editors can change. Since his block on the 6th October, there was over 2 weeks of discussions regarding it. TT took it to Arbcom, who turned him down then asked me if we could go for another unblock request early November, I suggested early next year. Since then, a few admins who had tentatively supported his last request have come to me to mention that TT had approached them about unblocking. Last week, one of them asked me on my talk page if my offer to mentor was still open and I suggest it was, depending on the results of the ArbCom elections. Rather than waiting for that, which would be a few more days, TT put forward this request. TT has not stayed away for 6 months, under WP:OFFER, nor has he stayed away for 2 months. In fact, I don't believe he's stayed away at all. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose, with great regret (sorry, TT, it's nothing personal) and noting my disagreement with the above comment by Reyk. To address Reyk's comment first, declining to unblock an editor at this stage does not banish them to the waste bin of history—it merely says that more time is required—and you would find me vehemently opposed to any proposal to permanently remove TT from this project. However, I do not feel that sufficient time has yet passed for TT to fully appreciate where he went wrong and for the wounds he caused to heal. TT has previously been unblocked under fairly lenient restrictions—themselves imposed to mitigate the potential for him to get himself into trouble in the same way that led to his original indefinite block—and made next to no effort to adhere to them, so I am sceptical that, just a few weeks down the line, he is ready to be released from his third indefinite block in six weeks. That said, I would very much like to see TT back at some point; I just feel that now is too soon. I would suggest another appeal once the block has been in effect for between three and six months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock. It's been a little over two months since TreasuryTag was blocked, and, as demonstrated in his unblock request, he has clearly learned a lot from that experience. Furthermore, he has agreed to stay away from the topics and areas that resulted in him being blocked in the first place. Like those above, I'm more than ready to give him a chance to prove his worth and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose This user has been blocked thirty four times. See here and here. Even asking for unblock after only two months is basically asking us how stupid we are. Well, how stupid are we? Stupid enough to believe that chance number thirty five will be the one that finally works out? I hope not. I instead propose that we not allow this long-term disruption to continue, that we revoke TTs talk page access and refer him to WP:BASC if he wishes to appeal in the future. By the way, before anyone gets all upset and thinks I am saying they are stupid, that's not what I am saying. It was not widely noted in this user's recent history that they had been renamed several times, and that each of those names had a substantial block log of it's own. However, I should hope that the collective "we," now in full possession of the facts regarding how long this problem has really been going on, (again, 34 blocks over a period of about four years) would not be so foolish as to trust this user again after so short a time, and in consideration of the possibility that the renames may have been a strategic maneuver to make these facts less obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was wondering why it felt like there was less drama on here recently. Now i know why. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Too soon. This editor's disruptiveness well outweighed his contributions to the project. Six months, minimum, I think, and then if he still wants to return, we welcome him back with open arms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too soon, given the extensive disruption caused.  Chzz  ►  04:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I got an extremely similar email from TT about a week or two ago. I'm guessing he carpet-bombed such requests to at least a handful of admins, hoping someone would bite, and I'm not impressed by that. To me, the request reads as pretty clearly him playing nice through gritted teeth, and the (apparently) scattershot deployment of the request makes me think he realizes that enough people are going to be unimpressed by it that he needed to plant multiple seeds in the hopes that one might grow. In addition, his initial ban came after enough blocks, and enough trampling of second chances and olive branches, that I'm simply not convinced - and I'm not sure how I could be convinced - that TT is capable of operating within Wikipedia's guidelines and mores. There is no restriction or parole that has held TT, no matter how repentant he claimed to be, so far; why would we believe that any would work now?

  As a side note, as far as I know, BASC has already declined at least one appeal from TreasuryTag and stated that he may appeal again six months after that. I'm not at all certain that the ability to lift this ban even lies in the hands of the community any longer, given that restriction. I wonder if an arb or someone more well-versed in ban policy than I could weigh in on this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

On matters of blocking/unblocking, the community always has the power to override ArbCom. However, in a case like this BASC could be an effective buffer for making sure TT doesn't get unblocked purely through attrition, that is requesting it every month until people get tired of it and stop commenting. BASC could insure that only requests that have a reasonable chance of succeeding are put back to a discussion, and could limit the number of times that happens, but only if we revoke talk page access and possibly email as well in light of the fact that TT has, according to above posts, also been attempting to canvass by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter is correct; the Arbitration Committee en banc, not just the BASC, reviewed Treasury Tag's request that his block be lifted, and responded to him on 23 October that we upheld the community decision, and that he could appeal again to BASC/Arbcom in six months. However, that does not prevent the community, which imposed the ban in the first place, from reviewing it at any interval that the community feels suitable. The community may wish to impose a minimum timeframe for a community review as well, but I think that decision is best left in the hands of the community, and I (speaking as an individual arbitrator, and not for the Committee) would leave that issue to the community to decide. Risker (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as well - the 34 times and the ArbCom statement sway me. I would like to discourage pushing any problematic user onto another project to show improvement. Any problems here are best dealt with here and some other projects have far fewer resources to manage difficult editors. Rmhermen (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The standard offer lists six months as the default time. TreasuryTag was particularly disruptive, and particularly incapable, seemingly until now, of recognizing the reasons we were upset with him. He needs to wait at least another four months, preferably ten months, IMO. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Since he has agreed that he made a few problems in the past and he will be a little more careful in the future. And he will refrain from contributing in the areas he has made problems at. And I agree that this is now sufficient time. (Would you mind signing my guestbook?) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too many problems in the past to un-ban so quickly.   Will Beback  talk  06:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't know much about TreasuryTag's history here, but it's been only two months since he was blocked, banned, expelled, whatever. I'll rely on my IRL experience : 2 months is way too short for someone to reflect on their actions and to "change". It's easy to say whatever the community/boss wants to hear (e.g. I acknowledge my errors, I'll do better, give me a chance), perhaps it's a first for TT, but it's still an easy thing to do/say. In light of this, and after reading the above, I'll need more than words to be swayed on this; a much more concrete, detailed, specific, thought out plan of what he will edit, how he will edit it, and why we should let him edit it; "an area where an editor like me is needed" is way too abstract and vague. As a general rule, like Sven, I think 6 months should be a standard wait-it-out period, and 12 would be ideal. A mere 2 months served, and coming up with a boilerplate 'acknowledged, sorry, I identified a good area where to edit, thanks' rationale, with no specifics? Sorry, but I don't buy it. That said, and even though I've read the various threads, I'm not familiar with TT and his actions, and thus my opinion should be weighted accordingly. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Given the 34 blocks over four years, I don't think two months is enough time for someone to change their behavior. Kcowolf (talk) 07:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Block statistic: TreasuryTag's blocks are spread over four block logs, and these are not easy to read. So I made a statistic: 12 straightforward blocks, 4 block tightenings, 15 blocks followed by unblock on request, 3 blocks followed by unblock marking them as erroneous or inappropriate, 4 technical blocks to connect accounts. I believe the last two categories should not be held against the user in this context. That leaves 27 blocks, of which 4 were followed by a tightening and 15 were followed by an honoured unblock request. All this over a period of 5 years / almost 50,000 edits. It amounts to roughly 1 block per 9,000 edits. Hans Adler 09:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

27 blocks / 50,000 edits = 1 block per 1,850 edits. 28bytes (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I supported his last request, a de facto community ban isn't answered by an unban/unblock request in two months. If he had just stayed away and let the issues be forgotten, he may have gotten off after a few months, but stirring this all up again so soon is just ridiculous. I'll also add that TT emailed me a while back, looking for advice on how he could return, and I obliged. I'm disappointed to see that he apparently decided to opt for an hasty (and pretty generic) unblock request instead. I'm not seeing any real concrete restrictions, no mentorship plan, nothing said that convinces me that a community ban should be overturned so soon. Swarm ^X 09:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose far too soon, especially as the unblock conditions in the last unblock were promptly broken. Hut 8.5 12:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Far too soon. There was some sound advice in his editor review in June, and in August he proclaimed that he would be weaning himself off Wikipedia for good. He hasn't taken any notice of the former, and didn't do the latter. Users have been blocked for longer for less, and based on this I see no reason for an earlier unblock, and he should sit this one out for a full 6 months at the very least. Any return should be tied to extremely strict conditions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment In their request, their wording emphasized "you need me" (including in the selection of a link) and anything about true change is de-emphasized/barely there. And this is when they are at their best, trying to get back in. I think that a request that is a much more explicit commitment on the latter would be the minimum to expect. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support with extreme hesitance. The timing is terrible. I am one of those contacted by TT, and I did follow up (although TT may not realize this.) I reached out to Worm, who had volunteered to act as mentor, to see if the offer still stood, in light of the ArbCom elections. Understandably, Worm expressed concern about such a commitment if elected to ArbCom. I understood, and decided to wait until elections were over (which they are, just awaiting results). So the "chomping at the bit" when a couple more days might ring a more positive result, is troubling. However, as Hans Adler points out, the block history isn't as simple as the raw number would suggest. TT has contributed immensely, and a reformed TT would be a great addition. My sense of the results so far is that this isn't yet reaching a positive consensus, although it could but if it does come down as a support for unblock, I urge TT to read the close call as a strong mandate for extreme caution. Many opposers, and I daresay some supporters, would be quick to impose a block in a situation where another editor might get a minor warning. --SPhilbrickT 14:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support with reservations. I have mostly seen the good side of TT and was saddened when I found the other side. I would support the maintenance of the topic ban(s), but would be interested to see what could come of TT editing away from there. I would agree with Sphilbrick's comments about TT needing to use caution if successful - this is early for a request, and if restoring TT lead to another disaster, it would be a lot longer than the mentioned six months before a request could possibly be considered again. Peridon (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - too soon, it's only about three weeks since his last unblock request. Come back in late March/April with some other wiki contribution history. Nothing in the unblock request shows any understanding of the issues imo. As per User:Dweller, who had tried with TT and still is I imagine. Youreallycan (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  I count about 6 weeks since last on wiki request was closed (the one I raised), and a matter of days since the last off-wiki one was brought to my attention. Not sure about 3 weeks. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  Here, at the list of banned users, it says TT had a appeal to WP:BASC declined on October 24, 2011. - seven weeks ago, thanks for the correction. Youreallycan (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks to you too, I wasn't aware of that page. Either way, I agree it was too recent. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose He's rude and insulting and this is a much more hospitable project without him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - TT has burned out any AGF I used to hold towards his ability to work with others. I believe, given all of the past promises, unblocks, and re-blocks that TT will say what he believes we want to hear in order to be allowed to edit again. Given this is largely a behavioural issue that extended over years I simply don't buy that in the short time he has been away he has become rehabilited, seen the light, and will now be able to edit collaboratively. In short, I ain't buying what he's selling. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose To those who want him back under mentoring: he turned doen an offer in October. PaoloNapolitano 21:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed, which directly lead to this block in the first place. He then accepted mentoring, which was the last unblock proposal before the community. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose So much trouble over such a long period, so many blocks, given another chance so many times... No. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock to edit only non-Dr Who related articles and his talk page, and then see what happens - let's see what happens if we let TT edit articles and his talk page only. His major problem is, basically, being an absolute bastard to others, and misusing wiki processes. So let's see what happens if he edits only articles that are nowt to Dr Who, and has no interaction with other editors, except on his talk page. The next step could be zillions of things depending on what happens but I see no reason that he can't be trusted to start off this way. For the avoidance of doubt, if for some reason the closing bureaucrat/admin (?) sees this as a deciding !vote, yet one between blocking or unblocking, then default to blocking... I will change that to unblocking if TT apologises to me (yes, I could be a better man than that, but frankly he doesn't deserve it) Egg Centric 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose has been given too many chances and has always returned to disruptive behavior. The claims of edits "needing to be made" and "good faith editor" show that nothing has changed regarding TT's problems with WP:NOTTHERAPY MarnetteD | Talk 01:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Advertently or in-, TT was a regular guest at AN/I, either as initiator or respondent for far too long. I won't speculate on their degree of drama-magnet or drama-stirrer, but things are more pleasant without the endless threads. I'm not persuaded by the insinuation of "you need me" as I've not seen this wiki crumble given the absence of any particular editor (including myself). Premature timing combined with the reported shopping around of "unblock advice" requests indicates that the editor has not disengaged at all, merely lurked in the shadows. Leave it be TT, take a break, watch the little birds making their living in your favourite park for a few months. Editing here is not all that crucial of a calling in the final analysis. Franamax (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support an unblock given the narrowish terms he's given himself... although it looks like there's not a lot of consensus for that at this time. Shadowjams (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Although stating that he would avoid areas of past trouble, the fact that he sees his areas of past editing as where he "seem(ed) to have generated trouble" (emphasis mine) shows that he still doesn't admit that he didn't seem to be generating trouble, but was actually the source of it. Blackmane (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Greg L unblock request (baffling block) – December 2011

Resolved

 – ...and accidental blockee suggests it's been dealt with amicably with no further action by this forum (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I can't make any sense of the block of Greg L (talk · contribs), allegedly for disruption (the only evidence is to a discussion at Talk:Yogurt which was mostly caused by a misunderstanding, but was resolved much better and quicker than most disagreement I see on talk pages). Greg has asked for an unblock review, but so far no response from anyone. If I was so blatantly wrongfully blocked, I would hope someone would try to get the attention of an admin to unblock me, so here I am doing that for Greg. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked for disruption, it should be the admin who blocked Greg. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Born2cycle. The block by User:2over0 needs to be explained to the community. GFHandel ♬  00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. 2/0 needs to explain his block to the community. It looks like a terrible block to me. I see nothing blockworthy in anything Greg said at Talk:Yoghurt. It looked like an animated but ultimately productive discussion to me. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This was 2over0's first action after 2 two weeks of inactivity and he hasn't done anything since, either. It looks as if there is only boilerplate text, so maybe he just pressed the wrong button somewhere and isn't aware of what he has done? (Admins will know better if that idea makes sense.) Or maybe his account is compromised or something.

It seems pretty much out of character, so the situation should be monitored and maybe the account blocked if things don't get clearer soon. Hans Adler 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the extensive instructions at User:2over0#Security, it almost looks as if he suspected something like this to happen at some point. Hans Adler 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked Greg L. There was no reason for him to be blocked at all, especially without any sort of warning or discussion from the blocking admin. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer Hans's question, it is easy to block/unblock the wrong user if you regularly have a dozen tabs open at once. I've never done it, but I've protected/unprotected the wrong page before now!! However, this was the chap's only edit in two weeks, and only admin action in similar time. He doesn't appear to have been doing or looking at anything else on the project. Have to wait for an explanation I guess. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your help. I am now unblocked and able to edit. My block was indeed curious because 2over0’s contribution history shows he was off of Wikipedia for two weeks, dropped in to make just a single edit (block me) and immediately fell silent—even after others inquired on his talk page. I don’t profess to be super-expert on all-things-Wikipedia, but I do know human nature and find that unusual. Anyway, I very much appreciate my wiki‑friends stepping in here as well as other editors with whom I have had little-to-no interaction with stepping in here to do what they saw was the right thing. Regards. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's actually even more weird than your summary. I suggest contacting Elen with any further information, as I have done. Hans Adler 09:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I emailed User:2over0 last night to ask if it was really he who blocked me or if his account had been hacked. He assured me he has a strong password. Then he assured me that I had not been contributing in a productive and collegial manner. Implicit in the email was that his block was good stuff.

  There were eight years of hard feelings and water under the bridge over on Talk:Yogurt and nerves were apparently raw over the spelling change (*sigh*).

  But why intervention by 2over0 after being off Wikipedia so long? At the time of my block (23:30 (UT) on the 11th), there was no mention of “yogurt” on ANI. It stretches credulity to think that 2over0 thought, after a two-week wiki‑break, he would peruse Wikipedia, land on Talk:Yogurt, block me, and go back to watching “Jeopardy” on TV. It further stretches credulity to think that 2over0 had some special page watchlisted and, after two weeks of watchlisting, he ended up straight at Talk:Yogurt and did as he did.

  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on here. The most likely explanation is that someone on that talk page took offense, emailed 2over0 asking for a block, and 2over0 blithely obliged. Whoever asked 2over0 to do so clearly knew who to go to for a drive‑by blocking. It would be nice if whoever put 2over0 up to this to come forward and man‑up to putting 2over0 up to this. Greg L (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that there is more than a touch of bad faith in that accusation, and whilst I have no comment on the block itself, the chances that 2over0 was reading Yoghurt/Yogurt even if he wasn't actively contributing on wiki seems reasonably high to me. The person you should be taking this up with is 2over0, who is responsible for his own actions. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Greg: I found your comments toward Boing! said Zebedee on the Yogurt talk page to be fairly obnoxious, to be honest. If someone did ask 2over0 to take a look, I don't blame them. I would strongly recommend you consider moderating your aggressive tone. Be thankful that consensus was against the block in this case, but be aware that if you continue to unnecessarily inflame and escalate situations, as you did in this case, more blocks may be in your future, and they may indeed be supported by consensus. 28bytes (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything in that discussion that could be described as "fairly obnoxious" or blockable - and at the end of it BsaidZ says, Looks good to me. And yes, all just a misunderstanding - but all's well that ends well. Cheers. - Who was it that asked 2over to have a look? 2over is making a poor job of explaining his reasons for the block also. Youreallycan (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems clear that hard feelings at Talk:Yogurt have spilled over far and wide across the wiki-land and I find it silly. As Horologium wrote, There was no reason for him to be blocked at all, especially without any sort of warning or discussion from the blocking admin. I think we all know what was probably going on here. What is abundantly clear to me is making this ANA any more protracted than it is will inevitably lead to polarization and further accusations being slung about that someone or another is acting in bad faith. Wikipedia is an all-volunteer collaborative writing environment and there are different skill levels at every level. 2over0 took the time to respond to my email but elected—so far anyway—to not respond here, which is his right; none of us have been drafted into the Army and we may all participate to the extent we see fit. There is no point pursuing anything anymore. I’m done here then. Thanks to those who intervened. Greg L (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hey folks, I've only just seen this. I'd just like to confirm that the discussion I had with Greg L was purely down to a misunderstanding, and my feeling was that it had been settled amicably - so for the record, I don't support the block, and I do support the quick unblock -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Temporary desysop

Yes, Greg's comments and attitude were a little obnoxious, but they did not cross the lines of civility, at least not clearly. In any case, there was no justification for any kind of authoritarian intervention whatsoever, and, even if someone thought there was, the first step should have been a friendly suggestion, not a warning, much less a block.

Such a blatant abuse of power (blocking someone for comments in an inconsequential discussion that resulted in a quickly resolved misunderstanding), made even worse by a failure to explain his actions on his own talk page or here, indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of one's responsibilities as an admin, and the blocking policy.

If possible, to prevent further such abuses, I propose that 2over0 (talk · contribs) be relieved of special admin privileges for, say, a period of 30 days, to make sure they are not abused again. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support As proposed. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as proposed. If he isn't trusted enough for the tools now, he shouldn't automatically get them back in 30 days. Leave them, or take them, don't do both. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• - Yes, as per Sarek. With the details that we have I couldn't support recall for a single error as an admin. If he refused to , or is unable to clearly explain what happened and exactly who asked him and why he made the block - I could support him being blocked for the same length of time as the unexplained and quickly reverted block that he made. Youreallycan (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems to be a one off, so removal of tools would be disproportionate. Recommend administration of oily fish, as Occam's Razor says he probably just didn't read all the way down to the bottom and see that Greg L and Boing had made up. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The blatant misuse of the block button is allowed.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral Mistakes can be easily forgiven. The misunderstanding I had with Boing! said Zebedee was purely one of my devoting too little time to carefully parse what was written there; we all have to balance real life with our volunteer efforts here. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so I do not at all favor de-sysoping because of a *mistake*. However, I question whether an editor who devotes so little time to Wikipedia and exercises so little attention to wiki‑courtesies (like responding to ANA postings on his talk page asking him to explain his reasoning to the rest of the community) ought to still be using his sysop tools. Greg L (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Emphatic Oppose 2/0 is generally a sensible and reasonable admin, and I think this is the first time I've ever seen him accused of misuse of the tools. This block was inappropriate (and his refusal to engage the discussion here is irksome), but in no way at all does it rise to the level of a de-sysop, temporary or otherwise. Horologium (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose lacking a pattern of abuse, or immediate threat of further abuse. I would also rather 2/0 be given the opportunity to address the situation before we take any drastic action. Resolute 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• Comment too early to say - either way. They need to respond here with an explanation. Leaky Caldron 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please check over today's "Google doodle" topic

Today's Google doodle topic is Robert Noyce, and as usual his WP article is nearly his top g-hit. I read over the article and did a few minor copy edits, and was going to leave a message on the talk page with respect to the over-referencing and use of footnotes to include "cute" anecdotes, when I noticed an allegation of plagiarism. I'm not able to address this myself, as I am about to log off, but it would probably be good if another experienced editor would review the talk page allegations and perhaps also look at some of the other referencing. I know this probably doesn't belong here, but this page is more heavily watched around the clock than most others, and since the article has already required semi-protection due to its sudden popularity, this request is a bit time sensitive. Risker (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• In the External Links, this page is mentioned as a biography: http://www.elahmad.com/Robert_Noyce.html
• The content of the page is almost identical to the article on Wikipedia. Certainly looks suspicious, though whether it was made itself from the Wikipedia article who knows. Either way, the external link to it is pointless as its a duplicate of content here. I'll let someone with more copyright knowledge work out who copied who... (Its semi-protected anyway so nothing for an IP to do.)) --81.98.52.181 (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert by any means. But the link was added today with the edit here. I also note that the elahmad page has the [20] reference in the second paragraph of the career section, which suggests to me that they copied the Wikipedia article, but didn't remove all the references. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone should remove it from the external links section then. If all it does is duplicate Wikipedia content (and claim its a biography) it is of no use to the reader as an external link, and adds no support to any claims in the article anyway because its a cyclical reference. --155.245.103.78 (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In future, folks, remember that {{backwardscopyvio}} is around to flag instances of external sites that copy our content being suspected of being plagiarised. But in this case, it's simply a spammy portal linkfarm. I'd be unsurprised if there were plenty of other examples hidden on that site. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, actually, I was talking about Talk:Robert Noyce#Possible Plagiarism (dating back to July 2010), which suggests that at least part of the copy was taken from the PBS website, not that external link. The article has had a lot of changes since I looked in last night, so I am not certain if this has been addressed. Risker (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Duplicate detector suggests some still remains - but it has its roots in pretty deep. I don't have the time at the moment to do it, but the article needs a deep clean just to rephrase the copied portions. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC on non-free images needs to be closed

Would an admin please visit the RfC here regarding non-free images of deceased persons, and close it one way or another? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:213.232.79.43

Seeing as I cannot report this to AIV, and it is not really an incident, I am reporting that this IP needs its talk page access revoked for some time.—Ryulong (竜龙) 11:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed talk page access for the duration of the block. Hut 8.5 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:MarcusBritish

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Referred to WP:WQA

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Moved to WQA. 28bytes (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Personal attacks and incivility [2] [3] [4] [5] He has been blocked before for personal attacks, he obviously has not learned that this behaviour and provocations are unacceptable.Sheodred (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC) As I look at the surrounding conversation, I see that you're clearly escalating the rhetoric and unnecessarily personalizing things. Perhaps you could stop doing that? 28bytes (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Excuse me? Are you serious? Sheodred (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Yes, quite serious. If you tell an editor he talks a lot of shit, bring up unrelated disputes [6] to belittle them, and then haul them to a noticeboard (without initially notifying them), you should not act surprised and indignant when this is noticed and commented upon. 28bytes (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Anyone with any sense will see this as another attempt to retaliate against a Brit for having put a stop to Irish POV-pushing. Your history of reverts, false links to MOS "dictated policy" and such, speaks for itself. As does your claim that "I talk shite" [7]. WP:BOOMERANG heading your way. ArbCom have previously blocked similar Irish COI edits Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names#Binding_resolution, this is just another which you are desperate to push through, having attacked numerous editors for "civility" when you are just as bad. You have a habit of opening AN/I as a tool to protect your own agenda: [8] Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC) "Anyone with any sense will see this as another attempt to retaliate against a Brit" Come again? Sheodred (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Yes I regret that comment "talking shite", however it was a statement of your vitriol not you, regarding your statements you were attacking me not the points I raised, and in the face of the torrent of abuse from you, the commment was called for in my opinion.Sheodred (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Clearly that's untrue, as vitriol can't talk. Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC) "Torrent" - provide a torrent of evidence. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Request admin support and apply these closures: [9] - Sheodred keeps reverting them despite this AN/I protesting about civility: obviously he lives by double-standards. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Redacting your futile complaint [10]? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC) You derailed the discussion Marcus, you had no right to close the same discussion. [[11]] Here was the discussion about MarcusBritish's other recent incivility issues.Sheodred (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Reeks of WP:POINT. I see no connection between that and you. Synthesis. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Closing a heated thread is no different than hanging up the phone when there's an argument. Your reverts only highlight your desire to persist in arguing. Or simple petty mindedness, by not only refusing to drop the stick, but picking it up again, repeatedly. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC) "Anyone with any sense will see this as another attempt to retaliate against a Brit" Come again? Sheodred (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Derailed, no – that's your retort, unsupported by anyone else. I challenged the proposal, and people saw my argument as stronger. I only derailed your agenda, which is evident in your contribs. And I think it would be good for an admin to review your changes to biogs, removing British/Anglo-Irish references and rewriting Irish, to see if there is a major issue here. Enough for a Topic Ban, perhaps. Also, note [12] I am not the only one you have attacked as "British POV pusher". That's about 4 I count now. Me, Malleus, Sean, and her. So... speak up? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 22:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I apologised and so did she and noted my error,and also retracted my POV statement here [[13]], [14] *sigh* Removing a convo from talk doesn't hide it from view, and only brings into question whether you actually have something to hide, whilst flaunting my "past". Needless to say, I did warn you to expect a boomerang here. Doesn't help your case when you keep throwing it. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I find comments from Sheodred in his opening statement such as "He has been blocked before for personal attacks" to be extremely prejudicial and rather revealing. What has what happened before got to with what's happening now? Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC) And I find your comments about blocking all Irish editors] prejudicial to your contributions here. Mo ainm~Talk 23:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC) My comments derive from years of bitter experience with Irish Republican POV pushers; my unswerving opinion is that they're better out than in. But I am not the one laying charges here, that would be Sheodred; it's entirely inappropriate to attempt to colour the jury's impression by drawing attention to alleged past misdemeanours while deliberately ignoring one's own. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I see 'reinforcements' for Marcus have arrived, to answer your question Malleus it is relevant as we are dealing with the same problem that Marcus has been blocked before for, "prejudicial" no, "revealing" of his continuing belligerent and offensive conduct, yes that is the point. Sheodred (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC) I guess you see what you want to see, as many do. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that in a UK court of law, for instance, the prosecution is not allowed to inform the jury of the accused's previous crimes; each charge is treated on its merits. But of course natural justice is a foreign concept here. Malleus Fatuorum 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Three diffs are provided at the top as evidence of "Personal attacks and incivility". I see no personal attack. I see incivility. There's another place where that can be brought up. The enthusiasm with which MarcusBritish contributes to talk pages can indeed be wearying, but there's no reason to discuss it here. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC) If enthusiasm is a bad thing, I stand guilty as charged. I type just as much when it relates to articles; verbose is my nature. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC) If all you have observed is incivility I suggest you read the discussion that he derailed and disrupted, more carefuly.Sheodred (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Whilst your comments on Talk:Ernest_Shackleton#Anglo-Irish are perfectly civil, right? Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Marcus, responding to incivil comments in kind is obviously a good reason, but rarely a good excuse. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Then why did you stick "Personal attacks and incivility" right at the start of your report if you actually meant something else? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Can someone please determine why Seodred keeps spamming my page with notifications, despite this thread being an hour old? [15] [16] Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Looks like he's moving this to WQA. As such, I'll close it here. 28bytes (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wgfinley's conduct on A/E

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

asad (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wgfinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ADMINACCT

This was originally a request on WP:A/E that has been migrated here because it is not under the scope of A/E apparently.

WGFinley has seemingly lost sight of his of his duties as an Administrator on Wikipedia. As to why I feel this has happened, I will not speculate it was do to his preference towards a certain POV, unwillingness to admit a mistake or even flat out arrogance, because I quite frankly see that as irrelevant. This all stems from his adjudication of the User:Jiujitsuguy case. In quick summary, Jiujitsuguy violated WP:Consensus (in particular WP:Legality of Israeli settlements), by removing reference to Katzrin being an Israeli settlement in the Golan Heights. Jiujitsuguy later self-reverted. Something is important to note here: that although the complaint was originally filed for JJGs removal of a consensus statement, more diffs were added which shows that Jiujitsuguy deliberately abused sources to push a certain POV. This was especially concerning considering JJGs recent expiration of a topic-ban of, which he received largely for misrepresenting sources.

I am not going to copy the text verbatim, but it is clear to see from JJGs most recent A/E case he distorted sources to push a POV that Mount Hermon is in Israel. Both User:EdJohnston and User:Timotheus Canens both seemed to agree that there was an issue with JJGs sources and were willing to discuss the matter. But WGFinley was not interested at all. WGF was asked multiple times to please address the issue of JJG misrepresenting sources, he either did not, or claimed that he already did. I still, until this very second, have no idea where he purportedly addressed the issues.

JJG source misrepresentation diffs:

1. 13 Nov 2011 Claims Mt. Hermon is in Israel by using the Fodor's Travel Guide source and the quote he cites in the ref, "Mt Hermon, famous as Israel’s highest mountain," but leaves out, "at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." The full quote should read (with the strikethroughs being what JJG omitted), "Mt. Hermon -- famous as Israel's highest mountain, at 9,230 feet above sea level -- is actually in Syrian territory." (see the source here)
2. 13 Nov 2011 Uses this source to claim Mt. Hermon is in Israel, although the source clearly writes, "Mount Hermon reaches 9232 feet, but its peak is actually located on the border between Lebanon and Syria. The Hermon Ski Resort is in Israel's Golan Heights."

Besides the multiple requests on the A/E thread, WGF was asked on his talk page to explain the issue:

1. 30 Nov 2011 Asked by User:Malik Shabazz to address JJG misrepresenting sources after prematurely closing the A/E thread without seeing T. Canens latest post calling for a topic-ban
2. 30 Nov 2011 User:Gatoclass brought to WGF's attention that the issue in A/E was misuse of sources
3. 1 Dec 2011 Matter brought to attention, again by User:Nableezy with request for an explantion
4. 1 Dec 2011 Asked by myself to, again, address the issue of misrepresentation of sources

WGF's confusion of the matter was further illustrated by claiming that JJG had "self-reverted" himself at Mount Hermon, which he never did (see Mount Hermon's history):

1. 30 Nov 2011

This was the only other time WGF even brought up JJG and Mount Hermon in the same post. Neither of the diffs refer to him addressing misrepresentation of sources at all, whatsoever:

1. 30 Nov 2011

Additional comments

Lets pretend for a second that we want to accept WGF's position that Nableezy was uncivil and, therefore, WGF wouldn't want to respond to someone who was acting to so "uncivil" towards him. Fine. But what is the excuse for the other three editors who posed the same question? WP:ADMIN clearly states, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." WGF can't just say he has responded to something he didn't even respond to push the issue aside. He should be accountable for his actions, he can't use ambiguity to disguise bad judgement calls he has made as an admin. He seems to have an issue with editors questioning decisions he makes, as is evidenced by the amount of "discussion closed" hats he places on his talk page.

But what has become even more hard to bear in this whole debate is the fact that some admins are only catching the tail-end of the situation and noticing Nableezy's perceived "incivility", without even understanding the context of the situation. By doing that, some admins seem willing to sacrifice one "uncivil" editor to better the so-called "Project", but not look at the larger issue of POV-pushing and falsification of sources. Being an admin on A/E is not about personal vendettas or tallying up blocks and bans, it is about using tools in a proper way to make the encyclopedia experience more reliable for the average person trying to get information on a topic based on a simple Google search. This admin, in particular, has decided that a more important issue for A/E is the is an editors perceived incivility, but not one editors manipulation of sources that degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. I find that extremely distasteful.

I don't think WGF's adminship should be recalled, but I do think he should not be allowed to adjudicate anything further relating to ARBPIA. He should also be reminded, that he should be required to give a clear response when serious questions (like falsification of sources) are asked to him. -asad (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

Full disclosure, I am currently under a topic ban imposed by WG on a separate subject, though I still think I am quite capable of being objective about his actions. I'm pretty thick-skinned.

First, I think this might be for ANI specifically and not the noticeboard in general, though asad appears to have just been acting according to an admin's suggestion. Of course, I don't really know. Maybe this is the right place for it.

Second, I think the inquiry should be broadened a bit since it appears at this point to be little more than calling for a pound of flesh because of a disagreement with WG on one case. While the admin who suggested this area as a more appropriate venue felt there was not much merit, I think that is partly because it is focused on that one case when there are in fact two cases of relevance here. WG's actions in the case against Cptnono appears to be the main cause for concern on the admin's behavior.

That case has seen WG suggesting Nableezy be banned from AE requests and topic-banned because he believed the case against Cptnono was vexatious and because Nableezy had commented on the AE case mentioned above after it closed. I think part of the problem with that is the way WG went about suggesting it. Specifically, he made the suggestion in the AE case against Cptnono in the area for unvinvolved admins. Given some pretty heated words between him and Nableezy it seems charitable for WG to consider himself an uninvolved editor as it concerns Nableezy's conduct, especially since several of the problems WG cited with Nableezy's conduct were on WG's talk page and directed at WG. I should also direct attention to one of those problems (listed as #3 in a list) WG cites where he misrepresents the situation on his talk page. Another admin started a discussion on WG's talk page and Nableezy later commented on those discussions. WG only specifically warns him twice to take the discussion to AE and the second time Nableezy appears to relent, but WG seemingly implies that Nableezy ignored repeated pleas to only discuss on AE.

On a final note, I should add that WG's actions on my AE case were questioned along similar lines to those above.

I really have no opinion on action to be taken, though if WG seems to be out of his depth on more complicated disputes typical of AE perhaps he should be restricted to more technical and obvious areas of administrative purview. Of course, maybe he just needs to be told that carefully reading people's comments so as to understand the dispute is generally expected of an admin when suggesting sanctions. Either way, it seems he may need to be considered an involved admin when it comes to cases regarding Nableezy given the increasingly heated nature of their relationship on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by MichaelNetzer

This filing is predicated by disapproval over AE decisions WGF made regarding an editor who spares little discourtesy and rage towards editors and admins who disagree with him. This editor's tone and behavior are often aggressive, disruptive, uncivil and foment a poisonous atmosphere in the editing environment. He and supporters of his POV push in that editing space have mastered the art of trying to silence "opponents", including the art of excessive filing of complaints and filibustering discussions, based on technical issues meant to distract from the aggressive POV pushing behavior, far above what is generally tolerated on WP. This complaint is the last in such a series now intended to silence WGFinley, who has identified the behavioral problem and is proposing a remedy for it at AE. Nothing more. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Going after Nableezy is an unhelpful distraction. Nableezy may be abrasive at times, but that does not mean WG should be elevated to some sort of sainthood for suggesting action against him. There was clearly a heated atmosphere between WG and Nableezy, and it appears to have been specifically between them. He should not be suggesting any action under the guise of being uninvolved when Nableezy has clearly gotten under his skin. My thinking is he should have recognized that his own emotions were too intense and perhaps made a formal request as an involved editor concerning Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Abrasive" is a generously kind understatement for Nableezy's tone in the I/P editing space with editors he disagrees with. His behavior is the root of too many issues there. WGF is addressing this root cause that is too often masked behind technical issues. His involvement is only in his capacity as administrator and does not in any way disqualify him to handle issues with Nableezy. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy has presented five AE cases, I believe, within the past five months or so and two of them lead to sanctions against the reported editors with no action against Nableezy, in at least one case those sanctions were imposed by WG. Another saw several admins supporting sanctions, but was closed because of the opposition from other admins, WG namely. The latest one against Cptnono saw several admins agreeing that the conduct Nableezy reported was a violation or appeared to be a violation. WG's call for banning Nableezy from AE seems incredibly excessive in light of those facts. Given the heated exchanges he has had with Nableezy, him calling for a ban as an "uninvolved" administrator is a very serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WGF's concerns and proposal for ban were based on uncivil behavior alone. But he seems to have settled for no ban so the argument is now mute. The problem of behavior remains and will likely become more empowered in light of the peculiarly forgiving attitude of AE admins towards the problem. Something I haven't seen with any other editor who violates civility to this degree, and suggests severe prejudice. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That isnt true, and while it is unsurprising that you persist in making unsupported disparaging claims against others, it isnt remotely constructive. nableezy - 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The most constructive measure that I see needed to return to some semblance of good collaboration is to convince you to tone down your behavior. You and I have shown it's possible on the map. I'd like to see you try to remain in such a behavioral space more often. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think changing his mind after a flood of admins indicate to him that he is overreacting should really be considered a mark in his favor. That he thought he could act as an uninvolved admin in suggesting a ban of Nableezy from AE despite the obvious tensions between the two of them raises serious concerns. If Nableezy files a future AE report WG thinks is wrong and there isn't a flood of admins to convince WG he is overstepping, maybe he will actually impose a hefty ban on Nableezy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy himself has said that previous bans have helped him curb his 1RR violations. Whatever it takes for the same in collaborative civil conduct would be constructive and welcome. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

I do not support any actual sanction against WGFinley. However, I wish to record that several times I have been quite startled by the apparent animosity that WGFinley shows towards Nableezy, very little of which seems to be justified by the circumstances, and by the lack of logic displayed by WGFinley when discussing matters related to Nableezy. The AE process should not only be dispassionate, but should appear dispassionate. That is not the case here. I think WGFinley should voluntarily stay away from AE cases involving Nableezy. Zero^talk 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

WGFINLEY's Response

This is a complaint about a closed AE case. I stated my opinion in the AE case and engaged in discussion with other uninvolved admins. In the end another admin (not me) deemed there was no consensus for action and thus closed the case.[17] I could go on in detail but I had stated I felt what the editor did was wrong but shouldn't be sanctioned for it. This is the purpose of AE: noninvolved admins reviewing, giving their opinions and engaging in discussion.

During the course of the case some editors asked me questions on my talk page and I engaged in discussion but ultimately referred back to WP:AE as the proper place for the discussion. Many times on AE a tactic used by different sides is to game via filibustering, in this case it's repeatedly asking the same question (to get involved in the content dispute), getting an explanation (refusing to get involved in analyzing sources and getting involved in the content dispute), not accepting the explanation and then asking again. In this case this user and supporters feel admins should be researching sources on WP:AE, I believe this draws admins into content disputes and respectfully disagree.[18][19][20][21]

In summary I commented on an AE case and gave my reasons for my opinion, the case was closed without action by another admin. I didn't take any action that requires explanation but it's clear by the volumes on my talk page I didn't ignore the questions, I just didn't provide the answers desired.

--WGFinley (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Nableezy

WGFinley made several demonstrably false comments and refused to answer questions about them. I have outlined the sequence of events at User:Nableezy/sandbox. The claim that he did not ignore the questions asked of him is absurd, he still hasn't answered several basic questions. I dont expect that this will generate anything in terms of uninvolved commentary or any type of action, and Id suggest that this section be hatted in favor of an RFC/U. nableezy - 01:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear one final time with no reasonable means of ambiguity: assessing sources, outside of blatant cases (i.e. plagiarism and original research) is a content issue. What the source says, paraphrasing what a source says, how it is cited, whether it is a bonafide secondary source, what meaning the source conveys, whether someone is misrepresenting a source, those are all content issues that are handled through the normal process of editing an article. Admins don't do content disputes, thus, I will not answer your question because it is not for me to decide. --WGFinley (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I have to disagree there. Misrepresentation of sources is serious misbehaviour that strikes at the heart of collaborative editing anywhere in the encyclopedia, but doubly so in an area under ArbCom sanctions. The two examples cited above are particularly blatant. Kanguole 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• You are trying to misrepresent this as a content dispute. The issue is your bad judgement calls related to an editor misrepresenting sources. The content itself is not in question here. You seem to be handwaving to draw attention from your unsatisfactory administrator behavior. YehudaTelAviv64 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Against my better judgment, I'll comment on this briefly. Admins do not resolve good-faith content disputes. The qualifier "good-faith" is important: if no reasonable editor well-versed in our policies and practices would disagree on an issue, there's no good-faith dispute. Thus a complaint about misrepresentation or falsification of sources is a conduct issue, not a content issue. Thus WP:Legality of Israeli settlements has been consistently enforced at AE, because no reasonable editor familiar with our practices would have gone against an established consensus determined in a widely participated RfC without establishing a new consensus first. Similarly, a hypothetical editor who repeatedly seizes on a misprint in a travel guide to argue that George Washington was born in 1722 and not 1732 is not participating in a good-faith content dispute and may be sanctioned for misbehavior, even if no source misrepresentation or falsification is involved: no reasonable editor would use a passing statement in a low-quality source like a travel guide, even if otherwise reliable, to argue a point about George Washington's birthday. In my judgment JJG was doing something exactly analogous to that: to argue a hotly disputed point about Israel's borders using a single sentence in a travel guide as a source is not something a reasonable editor would have done. T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• I suppose an admin presumably has the individual right to personally regard misrepresentation of sources as a content dispute, although it's also reasonable to see it as WP:OR which "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". But if that is an admin's personal position, source misrepresentation is outside of their personally defined scope as an admin, there is no reason for them to be looking at AE cases that are based on source misrepresentation. They should leave it to admins who do look at source misrepresentation and sanction editors for it given that is clearly one of the most serious user conduct issue possible in an encyclopedia. Obviously if an admin doesn't regard source misrepresentation as relevant to their activities as an admin, they will never see it as an issue and will never sanction editors at AE who are reported for delibrately misrepresenting sources. It's like a traffic policeman who sees what he knows is a stolen car driving past but doesn't see it as an issue relevant to him because it's not breaking the speed limit. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sanction For An Opinion?

I don't understand how I should be subject to review for having a position on a case that was closed with no consensus. I made it very clear early on my position was based on staying out of content disputes and, secondly, I didn't state there should be no action. On the contrary, I stated, " Perhaps an admonishment to use better care and stick to reliable sources in territorial claim articles is in order?." I didn't close the case with no action, another admin did. So basically I am here on AN for a belief, a belief that that action should be taken, just not the action some folks wanted and was eventually concluded with no consensus? Pretty dangerous precedent. --WGFinley (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, it was closed as "Clearly no admin consensus to do anything", due to your refusal to treat the sourcing issue seriously, and the closer then resigned his bit. I'm not saying you're the only reason the encyclopedia and AE have (temporarily I hope) lost a fine admin, but perhaps you should reflect on your contribution to the situation. Kanguole 14:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• Im sorry, but that is one untruth after another. You arent here because you had an opinion, you are here because you a. made a baldly false statement and repeatedly refused to either acknowledge the error or explain the statement, and b. because you claim that lying about the content of sources is a content dispute. I myself would be willing to put this in the past if you would finally answer some very basic questions, starting with why you wrote I don't see what he did on Mount Hermon other than to point out there's a ski resort there and added a travel guide as source for information on that. in this diff when the user did no such thing and no diff even mentioned a ski resort (except as the title of a source). There are 2 or 3 questions after that, but if you could finally answer that one I think we may actually get somewhere. nableezy - 15:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• There have been other concerns raised here about your conduct with regards to Nableezy in general, not just by me, but by admin Zero. What Nableezy provided above, together with your comments on my AE case, also suggests you have a bad habit of not properly reviewing the more complicated cases on AE before suggesting action. How exactly do you address those concerns?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, though I am an admin I edit in this topic area so I am "involved". However, I send by the remarks I made as an ordinary editor. Zero^talk 00:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh please WGFinley, you are making it sound like your free speech rights are under attack here. For the sake of argument, I will give you the second diff (Popular Mechanics) which could be perceived as a "content dispute", but the first diff, there is no way you can call that a content dispute. When an editor cuts and pastes a portion of of a sentence, when the the end of the sentence said, "is actually in Syrian Territory", you are falsifying the source. Full-stop. -asad (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment by un☯mi

Ignoring everything else, I find the idea of source misrepresentation = content dispute, of a sort that AE should ignore, very disappointing. un☯mi 09:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the case at hand, that is correct. Misrepresenting sources is a user conduct issue, sanctionable at AE. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Many Arbcom cases revolve around WP:Tendentious editing. It should be self-evident that AE has the right to sanction such behaviour just as much as it does violations of WP:3RR.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder that if parties wish to ask that an administrator no longer be allowed to enforce AE sanctions (in general or in specific areas) the correct method is to ask the Committee. I'm not going to comment on the specific close here, just a procedural note. SirFozzie (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What about requesting that a specific Admin not be allowed to adjudicate WP:ARBPIA? I thought the correct place was WP:A/E, but I was told it was not so. -asad (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct, that should go to the Committee. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To remove an administrator from Arbitration Enforcement who says assessing sources, outside of blatant cases (i.e. plagiarism and original research) is a content issue... (and) admin's don't do content disputes has to go to some committee?

He's basically said he's not competent to determine whether misrepresentation (a type of lying and fraud, often used to skew content and that should be easy to detect) has taken place. Madness.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

After looking at WGFinley's contributions to the AE: In my opinion, this admin's behaviour was outrageous. I have not looked at Nableezy's responses to WGFinley (just noticed that there are many), but in my opinion a lot is excusable in response to WGFinley's extreme IDHT behaviour that can only be explained with bad faith or extreme incompetence. WGFinley should consider themselves lucky if the only result of this is that Arbcom removes them from AE on ARBPIA matters. Hans Adler 01:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up on the ArbCom mailing list myself, so let's see what other arbs think. SirFozzie (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to look into other administrators that have problems with misrepresentation (i.e., lying) let me know. You can start here: [22] (RFC on User:Ash showing he misrepresented sources, before he "vanished" and became User:Fae, now an admin and Wikimedia UK board member.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review close request

Non free deletion review discussion requires closure - an admin with experience in non free file usage and the foundations statement as regards such usage would be beneficial to a closing rationale , at discussion - open around eight days, with no comments for the last four days. Youreallycan (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China "move" proposal

There has been a fair bit of discussion recently at Talk:Republic of China about restructuring the way Taiwan, Republic of China, Taiwan (island) and several other articles are structured. While not a formal move proposal, the discussion has trended in a very similar manner to a complex requested move discussion. Attention of uninvolved administrators in either assessing consensus or guiding the participants would be much appreciated. I tried to take a look, but decided partway through that I wouldn't be best person for the job. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Republic_of_China#Closing_request. What we need is mediation as part of the dispute resolution process, rather than administrator intervention. But having a fresh set of eyes look at the discussion and try to steer it towards some sort of eventual consensus would be a good start.--Jiang (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that, even whilst mediation might be helpful, an admin close for all the discussions is useful if only to show that there was consensus for the proposal at Talk:Republic of China#New Proposal. There appear to be users who refuse to accept there was consensus for this as there were dissenting voices. However, I think that there were enough votes and good arguments that mean there was consensus for the proposal. Three admins earlier this year did not need unanimity to move PRC to China. I also think that whilst New Proposal was not another formal move request, it has the same significance of one because the previous move request at Talk:Republic of China/Archive 16 was abandoned, with the focus moving to New Proposal. But this is why I would like an admin or admins to assist, so we all know where we stand. John Smith's (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is worse than I thought. Editors are actively refusing to accept there was any consensus at all. Indeed, one user is dismissing the consensus as the views of "Pan green supporters". This is in reference to supporters of formal independence for Taiwan. Given that this is clearly a political disagreement and not one based purely on policy or objective views, I think we need outside admins to take a view as to whether there was consensus or not. Otherwise this page is liable to explode as people start fighting over whether there was consensus or not (and what consensus there was). As an experienced Wikipedian, I humbly request assistance to avert a crisis that ends up in Arbitration. I know it's not a fun job, but I hope someone helps all the same. John Smith's (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Any admin that has ever deleted an article has probably gotten at least one "please stop deleting my page" and "why did you delete my page" post. I created, awhile back, a page that I would like to offer admins and users alike to user for posts like these, it's User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD. What I do is just post it as {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD}}~~~~ and it creates the section header and signs it itself, just a copy/paste job. It might help so you won't have to constantly answer those posts, saves time and a headache. Just slap the template on their talk page. Feel free to tinker with the page at User:Neutralhomer/WWMAD, if you like. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It may save time and headaches, but I don't see how it helps the contributor to respond by giving a list of reasons that might or might not apply. I would think you use it by modifying the rendered text each time to include only the parts that are applicable——and to include something specific to the actual article in question, in order to indicate you are paying individual attention. And perhaps instead of saying "ask an admin," you really intend to say "ask me". Once we've deleted someone's article, we should consider ourselves personally responsible for whatever follow up is needed. I use prebuilt text phrases also, but never by themselves, except when AGF no longer applies. DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin that's why the "ask an admin" part is there. Since I can't do anything (to move it to userspace after it is deleted, etc.), I give them an option to find an admin for help, especially with that. With the "talk" link in my sig, they can contact me easily. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think admins should reply to concerns with more then a boiler plate answer --Guerillero | My Talk 04:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A long list of possible reasons for deletion is almost certainly just going to invite more questions anyway. I've seen boilerplate like this on some admins' user pages, which is fair enough, but although well-intentioned I don't think it's particularly suitable to a templated response. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

One nitpick I have had for a good while is that we need to get rid of the verbiage of "my page" or "my article", because whatever got deleted is not theirs (and theirs alone); the wording encourages article ownership, which not only goes against our basic wiki principles, but also goes against the CC-BY-SA. I think having that verbiage only serves to encourage that when we should be doing the opposite. –MuZemike 05:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

agree in principle, but can you think of an equally short equivalent that won't be clumsy? The best I can find is "the article you contributed" ; we normally reserve "your contribution" to mean a particular edit or insertion of material. Anyway, an article speedy deleted will normally only have had one substantial editor, and can in a very realistic sense be though of as "your article" . DGG ( talk ) 10:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"The article you created" ? Tarc (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

DRV close needed

Would someone care to close out Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 4#File:OccupyUCD3.jpg? The last comment was made on 7 December. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 10:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like it's already been requested a couple threads up. Kelly ^hi! 10:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Change to WP:C needed

Resolved

 – No admin action to be made here; the proper venue for discussion is Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, as already noted.  Frank  |  talk  22:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I originally posted this on the talk page of WP:C, but no one has responded yet, so I'm rolling over here.

The following phrase needs to be changed in WP:C as it does not reflect the realities of copyright law with respect to the public domain.

• "Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed in the public domain. Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf."

  This should be rephrased into "Images, photographs, video and sound files, like written works, are usually subject to copyright. Someone holds the copyright unless they have been explicitly placed are in the public domain. Copyrighted images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf." Under the old definition, it gives the impression that a photo published in 1922 would somehow be copyrighted, but under the rephrased rule, that photo is properly accounted for and can be listed as a PD image (anything published in the U.S. prior to 1923 is automatically in the public domain).

This nuance is properly reflected in the first sentences of the same section:

• "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed."

I understand we want to discourage copyright infringement, but we must account for media that fall into the public domain and not give users the false impression that some creative works are copyrighted when they aren't. I'd make the change myself, but the page is currently locked. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I highly disagree that this is resolved. The change is uncontroversial and simply needs to be implemented to reduce confusion. I am asking an admin to enact these changes. Buffs (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The matter is resolved as far as this page is concerned. It is inappropriate to ask an admin to make a change to Wikipedia policy without consensus for that change. The reason the page is protected is not because only admins can change the policy, but rather because changes to it must be discussed and achieved by WP:CONSENSUS. Again - as far as this page is concerned, the matter is resolved. I am making no judgment whatsoever as to the change you are requesting; I'm simply noting that this isn't the place to seek action.  Frank  |  talk  23:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As I've stated before, there is no objection to this change, this already IS WP policy and US law, and it is already reflected in the policy but was simply oversighted in later statements. This is no different than making a change in punctuation or fixing a typo. I kindly request that you stop labeling this as "resolved" when you and I are discussing it. I'd also like another admin's opinion on the matter. If they concur, I'll happily "drop" the issue, with the caveat that no one seems to have a problem with it. Buffs (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no point to discussion here, as this is not a matter for this noticeboard. Nevertheless, I will step aside so that someone else can explain that the matter really is resolved as far as this noticeboard is concerned. Again - I'm making no judgment regarding the edit in question; I am merely saying that this is not the appropriate venue for the discussion.  Frank  |  talk  00:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unstruck. Discussion now ensuing on talk page. I invite all input. Buffs (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Webhost to block

• 199.96.156.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Found this out from this. The range given is from the WHOIS lookup for the IP. The single IP in that diff is pingable and has an active webserver that has a webhost management page when you go to it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)