Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:23, 12 August 2012

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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.

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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 21 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 75 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 52 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	20	29
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	4	4
RfD	4	33	37
AfD	0	12	12

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 51 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 29 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Maddy from Celeste. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 15 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Please comment in this thread about blocks

Hello, everyone. Any administrators or users who are knowledgeable about blocks are invited to please comment on a proposed change to the username policy, which would affect how administrators assess a decent chunk of blocks on the English Wikipedia. There has been little participation so far, making consensus-building difficult. See this section. NTox · talk 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humboldt Cave AFD

An editor has tagged Humboldt Cave for AFD, following a dispute with another editor over an unrelated AFD. I've asked at the first editor's talk page for him or her to remove the tag, but it looks like the AFD for Humboldt Cave should be closed, as it does not appear to have been made in good faith. It hasn't been added to today's AFD log page yet. Lone boatman (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the bad-faith AfD tag from the article and deleted the associated AfD page. Will explain on the talk page of the editor concerned. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The name pretty much says it all. Angryjo2012london (talk · contribs) is mad at some Olympic boxing judges and created a spate of one-line articles on judges concerning their "controversial and scandalous" decisions. Unfortunately, the references don't actually name the judges in conjunction with the press coverage of the dispute - the names were derived from the match scorecards. I deleted them all as unsourced negative biographies. Rather than create a policy-compliant article on 2012 Olympic boxing controversy (there's probably been one for every Olympiad) as I advised, they've chosen to argue. Having failed to gain traction at WP:DRN, where they were told to go to WP:DRV, they've chosen to start a retaliatory AfD on Humboldt Cave, one of my recent articles. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the AfD was speedily deleted, I removed the AfD tag from the article. Hope that's alright by everyone p b p 13:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're at it again [1], [2]. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-removed, and will block if it's added a third time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Angryjo2012london has not been notified of this discussion. This should have been done when the first report was filed, as it says in angry red letters at the top of this page.... I have now notified and I hope the user concerned steps back now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revoke talk page access

Due to misuse the talk page access revoked by 28bytes (non-admin closure) - --DBig Xray 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:PsiEpsilon needs talk page access revoked. There are too many diffs see talk page history. Ryan Vesey 14:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already asked the blocking admin to take a look. Thanks for doing it. --DBig Xray 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Policy question

WP:BLANKING says the following may not be removed by a user from their own Talk page: "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." Does the phrase "any other notice regarding an active sanction" include an active block notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. If we wanted to allow removal of active block notices, I think we would need to make a specific exclusion. Ryan Vesey 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recall this question being raised some months ago. I think consensus was in favour of prohibiting removal of active block notices, but I'll look for the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, Lothar, very helpful. I can now see in the edit history where the phrase "any other notice ..." was added. FWIW, the sentence should be reworded in my view as the added phrase encompasses the first phrase. It was that redundancy that gave me pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does that work with normal talk page archiving? Obviously you can't create a talk page archive if you're currently blocked, but people with active Arbcom topic bans who aren't blocked are able to archive their talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary. Checking user's contributions clearly shows active blocks, no need to force editors to maintain a badge of shame on their talk pages. Nobody Ent 00:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? People don't generally go to the contributions page to find out about an editor, they go to the talk page first. A block may or may not be a "badge of shame", it all depends on the circumstances, and the talk page can provide a lot of additional information which can help put the block in context. The block log has no context, just the naked facts - and strictly from the admin's point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that any comments related to the block but not in a template can be removed? Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the block notice if it wasn't given in template form. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my understanding -- only the block notice itself cannot be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my case, the user blanked the entire Talk page. I restored ONLY the current block notice. I haven't seen an answer to Nyttend's question. I also agree that current block notices should not be removable. Checking the log isn't an easy matter for most users, and I don't see why we should have to. It only has to stay in place while it's active.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what people do? All I know is what I do -- user or talk page then immediately bounce to user contributions. Look at page of last contributions (what have they been up to?), then go to earliest (see how old account is) and then down to the toolserver edit count (total number and distribution). That's all real data.

If an editor is blocked I don't understand why ~~vultures~~ editors need to be circling around their talk page -- they can't do any harm to the encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Ent is 100% correct about how it should be, but as I recall there was no clear consensus on this issue the last time it was discussed. I know that for blocks that I make, I don't care if the user blanks the block notice, and if some Rulz Enforcer comes in and replaces it, I'll revert them. For cases like this where there's no consensus, I guess deferring to the blocking admin seems a reasonable compromise (even when, if they disagree with me, they're wrong). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'd be happy to agree with you when you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Ryan

If past experience bears out (and this CNN article can attest to) we're likely going to see a lot of activity on Paul Ryan's wikipedia page over the next 24 hours. There is already some edits/reverts being made dealing with the rumors that Mitt Romney is going to name him VP tomorrow. Still just a rumor and nothing is getting out of hand, yet, but this may be a page that a few admins will want to put on their watchlist real soon. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 04:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there are claims that Stephen Colbert has asked his viewers to vandalize articles on Romney and his VP candidates. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not claims, it actually happened. [3] --MASEM (t) 05:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review from uninvolved editor

Hi, I have been accused of edit warring on a controversial article Liancourt Rocks and so I would like a review by an editor that has had no previous involvement with this article or any related article. I have removed text from this article which claims administration of the islets by South Korea as none of the sources given actually state this. My reverts are based on Wikipedia guidelines, however I will not make any further edits to prevent an edit war. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid warning -- at a minimum, you should be explaining your reasoning at Talk:Liancourt_Rocks Nobody Ent 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the warning. I'm asking for a review of the edits I've made and I've just added a section on the talk page. Clover345 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divineabraham

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

Divineabraham is requesting the removal of his present indefinite block, which was levied a year and five days ago after an SPI. The user seems to have socked more after the block; he last posted an unblock request in January, after the most recent discovery of a sock, but was given WP:OFFER and told to wait six months. After not editing for more than six months, he just now posted a request for unblock:

I believe that I deserve to be unblocked, its been more than 6 months. I think I have gained some maturity as well.

I declined the request procedurally, since I don't think that this type of block should be removed unilaterally, but I promised him I'd submit his request to the community. I am neutral on this specific situation. Please offer your input so that we can have a solid consensus on this user's future. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally commensurate with an SO response, I expect the user to explain what they did wrong that got them blocked in the first place, what the intend to do differently, and what areas of Wikipedia they intend to contribute to. Saying "I've waited and now I'm not going to be bad" isn't usually enough. If he can make it clear that he knows why what he did was wrong, and can explain why Wikipedia needs him around, that would go a long way towards gaining my support for an unblock. --Jayron32 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the vague assertion: "I think I have gained some maturity". There should be a greater certainty expressed that maturity has increased, what the previous bad behavior was, and that the behavior will not be repeated. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Divineabraham produced several unblock requests between August 2011 and January 2012; you may want to read them to understand his thinking more fully. I've invited him to participate by using the {{helpme}} template, so it's possible that he'll respond to what you say here. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived, since this probably should get more discussion. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, lack of discussion = lack of community interest in unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I virtually never participate in these things, and to me it seemed right to get someone to close it, among other things. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They've repeatedly been told to review WP:OFFER, I don't see any indication they have done so. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Limited unban request for Peter Damian

Background

Request by Volunteer Marek

Over at Wikipediocracy the topic of the Core Contest has recently been raised (in a positive manner). User:Peter Damian, who has been banned on Wikipedia, but who is a specialist in the field of late 13th century philosophy indicated that he would be interested in massively improving the Duns Scotus article for the contest. Duns Scotus is one of the top three medieval Philosophers, along with Aquinas and Ockham so the article definitely falls within the purview of the Core Contest.

It is my understanding that Peter was originally blocked for some mutually problematic interactions with another particular, single, user. Notably, AFAIK there has never been any question as to the quality and integrity of his content related edits in the Philosophy area, and importantly for this request, the “other user” involved in past conflicts with Peter has never edited or shown an interest in that particular article.

Hence, I would like to propose that Peter Damian is provisionally unblocked for the sole purpose of improving the Duns Scotus article. Effectively Peter would be “topic banned from all of Wikipedia EXCEPT the Duns Scotus article and its talk page” (and also his own talk page, since I think he’s not blocked from that either). He would work on improving the Duns Scotus article, hopefully get it up to GA or FA status, and then submit it to Core for review. If he does edit anything but the Duns Scotus article and its talk page, his block can be reinstated.

If all goes well, this would be an opportunity for Peter to show that he is capable of non-controversial participation in Wikipedia and after the contest ends we could have another discussion about whether the ban could be relaxed further. VolunteerMarek 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think something worth noting is that the history of his talk page notes that if he wants his talk page unprotected and/or wants to be unbanned, that he contact ArbCom. I don't a simple relaxing here would be appropriate without contact with them first. Regards, — Moe ε 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, this is outside the remit of ANI/the community as a whole. dangerous panda 16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the (very quick) closure of the request here - Peter Damian wasn't banned by the ArbCom but at AN/I. Hence, it is within the scope of the community decision whether to allow this or not.VolunteerMarek 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history here it seems the last unblock discussion took place at WP:AN, which is probably where this request should go, right? VolunteerMarek 17:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unarchived; while Peter Damian was under arbcom sanction the ban was a community ban by ANI discussion. The community is per policy allowed to unban those it bans (arbcom is another appeal point, but we can undo anything we can do). Unarchived on this procedural basis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Should it stay here or be taken to WP:AN? VolunteerMarek 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Formally AN, but we've allowed discussions starting here to stay here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support conditional unban: Peter Damian (under whichever account he chooses - but just that one) should be allowed to edit Duns Scotus, over the next couple of weeks, upon which his efforts should be evaluated and a full unban should be considered.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. VolunteerMarek 20:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:BEANS. We shouldn't condone editors evading their bans to disrupt Wikipedia to win a contest. Per below. Regards, — Moe ε 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, chill out. He's not "disrupting Wikipedia to win a contest". He's trying to improve an important article. If it makes you feel better, we could just say that if he does somehow win the Core Contest, his winnings (which I think are like 20 bucks or something) will be donated to Wikimedia foundation.VolunteerMarek 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not? His article choice was rejected in part as it wasn't a tier 4 article, to which he promptly quit promising "mainstream press" about Wikipedia article quality, then reverted his edits to the article he intended to help by reinserting misinformation. What part of that is helpful? Regards, — Moe ε 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "rejected" (I think it's hard to get an entry "rejected" from that contest) - someone just pointed out it wasn't on the Tier 4 list. The subsequent discussion on the talk clearly indicates that people think the article is certainly significant.VolunteerMarek 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase, then. Peter felt it was rejected based on a judges opinion, to which he quit and then redacted all his edits to the article. Regards, — Moe ε 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate, but also easily correctable. This is a Wiki and editable. Why not try to talk to the guy. He obviously wants to play on the Wiki but is also pissed off at the shunning. Don't make it all some all or nothing, decide it now, drama. Give the man a chance and try to make it work.TCO (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support For this very specific editing purpose that I believe Wikipedia would benefit from, as Peter Damian can easily be acknowledged as being an expert on the subject of Scotus. I should add that he should also be allowed to edit the Core Contest entry page, obviously, and also be allowed to respond to any dispute resolution processes that are started directly about him. Silverseren^C 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's been years. Nobody Ent 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Subject matter expert wants to improve article. Please let him. Antandrus (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible oppose. Looking through the behavior when he was banned, there seems ample evidence that this is somebody the encyclopedia does not need - and given that Quisquiliae (talk · contribs) he's still socking right now it's blatantly obvious that he has not reformed in the least. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will never support unbanning this editor. His past behavior showed a level of malice of the sort that does not go vanish over time, and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with. Looie496 (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with - what, he shoots lasers from his eyes? VolunteerMarek 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's way more dangerous than that. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for a valuable contributor, provided Peter drops any vengeful agenda he may have against various editors and administrators. I've seen a lot worse than Peter get second chances...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose for two reasons: 1) per The Bushranger - Peter has a long record of causing problems, and appears to be clearly acting in bad faith 2) if Peter wants his ban lifted, he needs to apply for it himself, and make appropriate commitments himself as part of this. VM doesn't state that he's acting as Peter's proxy in this matter, and even if he was this would be unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Wikipediocracy discussion above, which should be sufficient. And I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be "unacceptable" here (did you mean "even if he was not"?) VolunteerMarek 01:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to be blocked, he can make a genuine request by emailing ArbCom per the usual arrangements for banned editors whose talk page has been turned off. His posts on Wikipediocracy makes no meaningful commitments to stick to a single article or behave in an acceptable fashion, and it appears that this is entirely about proving some kind of point about how foolish Wikipedia is by not letting him contribute. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

unban. Yeah, the dude is not perfect, but who is. This ban crap is much more about some sort of social forum shunning game than really defending the editorial content process at Wiki. Makes me sick. Let the guy in.TCO (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Peter Damian does not appear to understand why he is banned, and says at Wikipediocracy, "It would be newsworthy if I were blocked for trying to improve the Wikipedia article on Scotus." While it is unfortunate that the Scotus article has been neglected, I can forsee conflict. TFD (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First, we should be considering the interests of the encyclopedia; it is obvious from this individual's statements elsewhere, that the interests of the encyclopedia are not why he wants to edit the article in question. Second, banned really does mean banned, and creating extra sockpuppets to get round a ban, does not result in the lifting of that ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, Hell, full-unban him and welcome him to the Re-Established Editors Association. PD's a sharp guy and will do good work. Remember? Project. Build Encyclopaedia. Anyone Canz Edit. I've seen a lot worse than 'Peter' editing without restriction. And nobody go and block him; ya might piss him off (oh, right, that would be the intent). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nb: Article needs attention from an expert on the subject.

Oppose, I was ready to support this, but revelations that he's still socking despite a ban scotched that. If he's not willing to follow the "don't edit when banned" rule, what other rules is he not willing to follow? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Oppose - Are we not yet tired of having our chain yanked by people like this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unban. Why should he get an unblock just for his own personal gain? Jtrainor (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because in this case his gain is also wikipedias gain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've no opinion about this particular editor's history or merits, but on general principles, oppose unban of any banned editors who are actively socking (as per the section below). Sandstein 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Peter could rewrite the Scotus article in wiki format and post it, cc-by-sa, somewhere off Wikipedia (Wikipediocracy?). If it's an improvement, an editor in good standing may replace the existing article with it, or parts of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As a pro-WP active Wikipedian who also posts with some regularity at Wikipediocracy, I just want to share a couple thoughts for what they are worth. There are a range of anti-WP folk who post there who range from frustrated barred editors to out-and-out jihadists seeking the day in which they can dance on the grave of a completely annihilated Wikipedia. Do not act presumptively and treat them all like the latter, it only fuels the hatred. Strive for both calmness and rationality in decision-making. Even if the answer is "no thank you," make sure to do the legwork to provide a rational basis for that opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note that he could remained blocked; he can then contribute from his talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock

Well, I just found this: Quisquiliae (talk · contribs) Sporadic edits between 2010 to now, including edits to talk page of Jimbo. Peter Damian writes on Wikipediocracy on August 9: "I'm thinking about entering on behalf of the beleaguered article on Duns Scotus (T-H-L). Not actually listed as vital, but current academic view is that Scotus ranks in the top three medieval philosophers (together with Ockham and Aquinas) in terms of notability, and probably is in the first position, so it should be there." The same day on August 9, Quisquiliae returns to editing and writes in User:Quisquiliae/sandbox: "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy both agree that Scotus is up there with Aquinas and Ockham as the three most important philosophers of the High Scholastic period (c. 1200-1350)." and then proceeds to make sweeping changes to the Duns Scotus article mentioned, entering it on Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries for the above mentioned contest. He also messaged Casliber [4], another participant in the Wikipediocracy thread, about editing the Scotus article. WP:DUCK seems to be quacking with this one. Regards, — Moe ε 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock confirmed, User:Quisquiliae is banned editor User:Peter Damian posting on Wikipediocracy "Oh well Scotus has been disallowed [5]" and "So this towering giant of the Western intellectual tradition is not allowed on a list that includes Bing Crosby" in reply to his message as Quisquiliae. Any administrator willing to block this sockpuppet of Peter's for evading his ban? Regards, — Moe ε 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a fairly poor idea to block Peter Damian or his sock for trying to improve the article which is the topic of his professional expertise. Bound to send a bad message to potential expert editors. Has User:Quisquilliae caused any problems on wiki? Any disruption? Any block worthy behavior? Would we really be helping wikipedia by blocking him, or might this be one of those occasions where adherence to the rules are an obstacle to the improvement of the encyclopedia?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - "Any block worthy behavior?" How about being a block-evading sockpuppet of a community banned editor? That's all the reason needed, full stop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's banned, he's banned. There's no point in having a banning policy and community ban discussions if we're just going to close our eyes to violations of the ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Au contraire There is no point in keeping people banned if their not being banned would benefit the encyclopedia. The rules are useful when they are useful - when they are not they are not. In this case it seems to me that disallowing an expert from editing the particular topic of his expertise will be harmful both to wikipedia's content and its reputation. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Letting somebody who disrupted the encyclopedia to the point of being given the boot by the community freely sockpuppet and get away with it scot-free will harm Wikipedia's content and reputation far more than blocking the block-evading sockpuppet ever could. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe accusing Jimbo of enabling theft is exactly the most appropriate behavior. On wiki, that is probably the only unhelpful of edits (all the edits in that conversation to be exact). Off-wiki is another matter, because he gives his intention to cause disruption to Wikipedia on the Wikipediocrasy thread because his article wasn't chosen. He was banned in the first place because he was disruptive and he caused disruption with sockpuppets to the point the community got sick of him. Since his article wasn't chosen for the contest, he went and reverted all his edits to the article back to a previous revision. He only wanted to participate in productive article writing since there was an award incentive and since he can't win, he doesn't care anymore. He has no intention of helping Wikipedia, it is quite apparent, and Quisquiliae needs to be blocked for evading his ban. Regards, — Moe ε 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, if he's unbanned by community discussion, that's a different matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Until then, Quisquiliae needs to be blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to lay out the previous discussions (has no-one linked to them yet?) So we have a community ban discussion here from this enforcement request from this discussion. There will be more. I do think it needs to be considered with all the background on the table. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been thinking about this as this has been discussed by the arbitration committee at some point (can't remember exactly when and I need to refresh my memory). It is worth noting that many of the discussers of the community ban are no longer actively editing, and this issue could be considered as deriving from an arbitration process. Furthermore I think some history needs to be absorbed by folks considering this. My initial question would be whether the community wants further discussion to be by the committee or by the community. So that'd be a good question to sort out first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that ArbCom need to be involved at some level, since that was the root of the issue, and there seems to be a bit more than meets the eye going on. If he was socking (which has not been "confirmed" as far as I can tell, at least per the standards at WP:SPI/CU) that would complicate matters. I don't have an opinion on the unbanning although I'm obviously for bringing back highly skilled (but policy respecting) editors, but I think it does need more than a day's worth of chat at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot more than meets the eye, here. Casliber was quite right above. This is one of those things that has years of accumulated history. I put the background in above — because I had the same thought as Casliber at about the same time. There are several things that I did not put in. Some will just stir up issues that I'm sure we're all sick of hearing about. But others are things like Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian III (talk · contribs), Peter Damian IV (talk · contribs), Peter Damian V (talk · contribs), and Peter Damian VI (talk · contribs), only one of which is even on the SPI casepage, notice. The SPI case isn't the whole of the matter, by any means. Uncle G (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Quisquiliae

He left a final response here. To some extent, I agree with him. Silverseren^C 11:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he banned?

Further reading for Ruud Koot and others
/Archive161#Peter Damian block review /Archive166#Epistemic Theory of Miracles /Archive167#protection of User talk:Peter Damian (Jimbo's ban) /Archive175#Ban me now /Archive199#Peter Damian block length /IncidentArchive335#Election stuff /IncidentArchive338#User:Dbuckner /IncidentArchive490#Banned user Peter Damian and sockpuppets "[…] he creates throwaway socks, writes some very high-quality content, and then reveals himself in order to "force" us to re-block him. Last time this was discussed here, the consensus was that nobody felt an urge to feed the troll and play his game, by doing him the favour of blocking him." /IncidentArchive440#Bad Blocks /IncidentArchive537#Crazy block by Connolley /IncidentArchive549#Community review of Law's block of Peter Damian ("How to utterly destroy Wikipedia") /IncidentArchive602#Logic Historian

Could someone give an executive summary of why he was banned? (But a somewhat longer summary than him being a nuisance). I remember trying to figure this out after I came across a note by a valued colleague who stated he left WP because, among other things, the "situation with Peter Damian," but soon gave up after having to follow a whole mess of linked discussions. I wasn't even able to figure out whether he left because PD was banned or because he wasn't banned soon enough. (Upd.: I'm now pretty convinced it was the former.) The discussions Casliber mentioned above also seem to be from after the situation had apparently escalated. —Ruud 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was banned several times for a variety of reasons; however enough time has passed - he has a clear capacity to create high quality content - and the time has come to give him another shot at editing with perhaps a few provisos from arbcom. That seems fair given the recent return of a couple of problematic editors who are now making significant and positive contributions again, (thorny persona and all)...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here of course is that history is repeating itself. See archive 214 of this very noticeboard. What happened there is what's happened here: An unban is requested by a third party. People discover that sockpuppetry to evade the ban was ongoing at the time. They object because of that. Peter Damian withdraws the request. It happened there. It's just happened here. History has repeated itself more than once on this, and not only when it comes to the unban requests. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. No-one can do that. There is, at this point, some six years of history here. Peter Damian's first edit using an account was in June 2003 and things went bad in 2006. The six years since cannot be boiled down into a short "executive summary". The history here includes a whole lot of things including (a) the Wikipedia-promotes-paedophilia dispute, (b) Peter Damian's interations with other editors, (c) a ban by Jimbo, (d) the whole FT2 incident including accusations levelled at FT2 and legal threats, (e) the Foundation-l mailing list ban, (f) the current Ash/Fae incident, (g) currently ongoing disputes over images at Commons, (h) currently ongoing disputes with Wikimedia UK, (i) breaching experiments (reported by SlimVirgin in 2010), and (j) the off-wiki "destroy Wikipedia" incident. With the best will in the world, Ruud Koot, the only answer here is to do the reading. Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "further reading" only shows how ridiculous Wikipedia can be at times. For example the "destroy Wikipedia" incident, from the comment by the closing administrator (and current arbitrator) User:Xeno: Peter has been unblocked and has been asked not to destroy, or attempt to destroy, Wikipedia. Similarly, several folks have admonished Law for blocking a user for off-wiki hyperbole. Nothing more productive shall come of this discussion. Note also that of course, Law who did the blocking of Peter that time, got desysopped, sock puppeted, got adminned again then had to be blocked and desysopped again (and original account indeffed [6]). Of course THAT user is still merrily editing away as if nothing happened. I think Peter has much to contribute, so why doesn't he get another chance? What's the difference? Lack of powerful friends?

Additionally, like I said in the proposal, while there was some trouble with FT2, FT2 has *never* expressed interest in the Duns Scotus article, so that shouldn't be an issue. VolunteerMarek 22:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manning

Editors working together on Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello I believe my edit is correct because it doesn't say Bradley Manning leaked the info it just states that there was a leak which is not in question and User:Srich32977 thinks that his belong I have no malice towards him I just don't want edit war.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind discussion opened on the talk page. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute and best dealt with on Talk:Bradley Manning where Srich attempted to start a discussion with you earlier but you have either missed or ignored and reverted him anyway. None of this merits an ANI over and I'd watch that you don't shoot yourself in the foot with an edit-war claim. Have you notified him of this thread?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud your self-revert as moving in the right direction.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't notice the discussion until just now I am making no claim against him of edit warring and I even revert my edit until such time as the discussion is complete with a consensus.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unban request of User: Shakinglord

Ban maintained, sock blocked CharlieEchoTango (contact) 23:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per a discussion on User: Muzemike's talk page, I publicly reveal that I, User: Penguin 236, am actually a sockpuppet account for User: Shakinglord. I am very sorry to any editors disturbed by this fact. I have come to AN to request my unban. I believe that I am a substantial editor, my goal is not to disrupt Wikipedia at all. I come wanting to improve Wikipedia, like each and every good editor here. I merely made one fatal mistake, and that ruined my career editing Wikipedia. I would like to clarify the matter of my socking, a matter that is seen as "strange" to my blockers. I admit that my first socks were bad. I was both depressed and paranoid and I wanted to arrange a test as to whether people cared about me on Wikipedia if someone ranted about me. I was blocked, and the rest are simply just the spawn of panic, out of a sort of need to edit and improve Wikipedia. I know that banned editors are not supposed to request their own unbans, but please, hear me out on this one. I firmly believe that I can make decent edits to Wikipedia. I do NOT want to return to Negapedia. I feel that I can better improve Wikipedia here. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion at his talk, Muzemike refers to checkuser data (he's a CU) connecting Penguin with Shakinglord, so we can take it that Penguin is telling the truth and not trolling by pretending to be someone else. No opinion on the unban request. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser wasn't even necessary. All one had to do was make the connection with his old account here. --MuZemike 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; I happened on this by accident and assumed that you connected the two with CU. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what is actually true about who you say you are on your user page?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the user boxes, those are my real views and hobbies. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: I'm sorry, but lying which you have been persistently in the past does not signify any change in my opinion. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply sorry for that, I was simply fearful. My intentions are good. I do have to admit, my socks are not. I am simply trying to say that a clean slate will alleviate the problem. That is all I want. Then, I will acknowledge that my previous transgressions are bad and I will never sock again. Isn't this what WP: ROPE is for? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact of the matter is that you still tried to deceive us again. If you were truly, keyword, truly deeply sorry for your actions, then you shouldn't have tried to pull off the same stunts as last time. You blew the previous chance you gave yourself with, threatening legal action and trolling. Let's not forget this which is essentially the same as this situation. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. The time-wasting silliness of this, among other things, tells me that the standard offer would be a wiser course of action. WP:NOTTHERAPY is pretty apt here as well, I think. 28bytes (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, again, was a mistake. I was simply freaked out that I may not be able to help Wikipedia. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is a a correct way to request to be unbanned, but he choose to use a sock instead so I don't see how we can trust that he will not disrupt Wikipedia again.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let us examine the possibilities. If I am unbanned, why would I further sock or disrupt Wikipedia? What do you have to lose by unbanning me? I am a good editor, had I not posted that I am Shakinglord, you would have not thought of me as problematic. True, this has turned into a bit of a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I simply could not keep living a lie. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I implore you, let us forget those horrible, foolish mistakes. Those were awful, yes, but there is no need to dwell on them. I can do good, and you know it. Please, if we leave my past mistakes, I promise that there will be no more sockpuppetry, lying, or disruption of any kind. And, on the first sign of disruption, you can block me forever. Also, if I am unbanned, I promise to stay off ANI and AN unless the discussion directly concerns me. You really have nothing to lose. Quoting ABBA, take a chance on me. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try with the popculture quoting and flowery appeals at forgiveness. I don't think that's gonna change the attitude of people towards you given what you've done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find myself somewhat annoyed that I spent the better part of an hour last night attempting to assist you with determining the nature of your block and with how to request an unblock, only to find that you knew perfectly well why you were blocked all along. I did start to smell "something" along the way, and I even strongly suggested that you grok the implications of the attention you were about to bring upon yourself. Although it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of this discussion, I don't know if you realize that your actions have (among other things) resulted in a complete block of an entire school from editing on Wikipedia. That kind of impact is FAR more detrimental to this project than pretty much anything that you did as an editor. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not your ban should be lifted, that will be for others to determine. I do have an opinion that your actions in the past have been severely detrimental to the project and create a high bar to overcome. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This editor could have created a new persona and tried to quietly edit and help the project without fanfare. Instead, he has been prominent in recent discussions on ANI, calling for blocks and bans on other editors. This is a strong indication that his motivations are far from clear, that his intent is not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia, and that he cannot be trusted. Follow the Standard Offer and come back when you have done so, to ask again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Hell no and block the sock until the discussion is finished. --Onorem ♠Dil 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a good thing Penguin owned up as a Shakinglord sock, but that doesn't excuse a circumvention of a block on sockmaster. I agree with BMK and TD's votes. After screwing up with all those edits, to trust this sockmeister again is an issue of concern to the project. Rebuilding a reputation via the original account and not socking ever again seems to be too steep a road for this guy...what's Negapedia anyway, some Newspeak-version of WP?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and block the sock When an editor is blocked (especially one with the history of Shakinglord), we occasionally grant them WP:OFFER. When that happens, and someone does unblock as per WP:OFFER, that is the WP:ROPE. One may not simply seize a rope of their own, using their own rules, and of their own accord. Evading a block is evading a block, period. dangerous panda 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We had this public appeal at 01:56, 12 August 2012, yet at 00:10, 12 August 2012 Penguin had still been lying about it and would clearly not have come clean if not caught. A period of honesty of just 106 minutes between the last lies and the unban appeal is nowhere near enough to convince me of good faith - I'd recommend a minimum six months of no socking and no lies, as per WP:OFFER, and block this latest sock at the conclusion of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are channels to go through and socking is not one of them. Yes Robby/Penguin revealing himself is a good sign, but let's not forget it was only inevitable before it MuZemike or somebody CUed him. Giant Snowman 10:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Blocks prevent disruption. Bans formalize block-on-site of long-term disruptive editors who have exhausted community patience. This editor has again demonstrated that he is not willing to comply with site policies but instead to disrupt and waste many others' time. Therefore I see nothing to gain with unbanning an editor who causes us to waste more time and refuses to obey policies. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Shakinglord's final contribution to his account on November 21, 2011: "I formally retire. I ask that no one disturbs my userpage, in memory of me. Farewell, perhaps we will meet again someday." Prophetic but too often true of a sock. On April 24, 2012, SL created the Onepier account. On June 3, 2012, when the Penguin account was created, SL said on this board: "Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here." ([7]).

Since being here in his new guise as Robby, SL has trotted around like a self-important puppy, spending most of his time here and at ANI, making pronouncements on all sorts of things as if he is already an administrator with 10 years of experience. When told by many that he should spend his time elsewhere ([8] & [9]), he ignores the advice and continues to do what he likes best, game-playing drama. I actually think he doesn't necessarily care whether he's doing "good" or "bad" as long as he's entertained. He's a precocious, emotionally immature boy (I'm assuming he's really 15) who has no boundaries in his behavior. He states above that at the "first sign of disruption, you can block me forever." I submit that his responses here are just as disruptive as the rest of his conduct and we should accede to his request. His contrition is absolutely hollow, and he has exhausted this community's good will.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we all are just wasting our time with this discussion. and that a Admin should just go ahead and close this unban request per WP:SNOW. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After the admitted ban-evading sock has been blocked, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek

Don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think this needs to be clarified. I am stating it in good faith.

Looking at the support section of above WP:RFA, I can figure out that it has a devoting effect of regionalism. As, the candidate is from India. Major supporters are also from India, who are supporting with a formal rational.(i.e. Voting in the RFA after long time, or more perfectly voting for the first time) I think these activity could change the results of RFA and also the consensus. Possibly, I could be wrong about this perspective. but, It is the thing that needs to be clarified. GiantBluePanda (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this best belongs at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At least say few words about it. GiantBluePanda (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as nobody is engaging in canvassing or sockpuppeting the votes are perfectly valid. I trust that the bureaucrats can distinguish between "Support - He's Indian", and "Support - <other reason>". (Disclaimer: I supported Ekabhishek.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But, It could be non-wiki canvassing. (Please I am not assuming bad faith) You can easily figure out that half of Indian users have voted in support, while they have rarely voted to any RFA in past. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please ban editors from WP:INDIA from participating in any RfA related to members. It's a simple solution really. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure why you think this is an issue. Obviously editors monitoring the talk page of the candidate and/or the various nominators would know about the RfA and would be motivated to !vote in it. If this brings more editors into the RfA process, that's a good thing. And, should we really be monitoring ethnicity of editors? --regentspark (comment) 12:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, we shouldn't. Rfa's are some of the more highly watched WP areas so I don't think any action is necessary. Nobody Ent 12:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, please say you were being factious with that comment, I literally choked on my coffee when I read that. I find that patently offensive to even suggest (joke or not), and certainly a violation of policy and common sense. I can confidently say that we will NOT be monitoring the ethnicity of voters, and not barring good faith votes based on any Project the participants belong to. That is a strike-worthy comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No more offensive than the OPs suggestion that I supported the candidate because I'm Indian. —SpacemanSpiff 12:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, I wasn't aware of your ethnicity, so the sarcasm wasn't obvious. I would agree that both are equally offensive, yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say this all seems in bad taste to me - if someone works extensively in India-related areas, they will be well known to other people working in India-related areas, who will be more likely to !vote in an RfA than people who don't know the candidate - and (surprise, surprise) a lot of those will be Indian! Although a candidate's ethnicity does not play a part in my decisions, I am pleased when I see good candidates from other parts of the world than the Western/American/British culture that forms the great majority - it's the best (and probably the only) way to address the systemic bias that is unavoidable in a project dominated by one culture/ethnicity. What matters here is whether Ekabhishek will make a good admin, and people's !votes should be assessed on their actual words, not on their ethnicity. (Mind you, did you see the number of Americans who supported Dennis, and Brits who supported me? What a disgrace!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GBP, how do you determine that many of the supporters are from India? Simply their activity? You'll notice that I've done a good deal of work on Liberian topics this year, but I've never been to Liberia and am ineligible for citizenship there. The whole RFA appears to be devoid of problems. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantBluePanda

Furthermore, GiantBluePanda (talk · contribs) appears to be some sort of troll intent on disrupting RFA, RefDesk, and Bwilkins (talk · contribs). See especially these edits: [10] (he claims to be a cleanstart account; he should know this), disruptive question, disruptive question, disruptive user talk post, disruptive question, questions BWilkins's autochecked alt account, CU violates privacy policy, nominating people for adminship [11] [12], desysop Bwilkins #1 & #2, and more in his edit history. This is in addition to the initial CU misfire (visible on his user talk page, which he currently has at MFD) and bumping into checkuser blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that this is an odd looking contrib list, the question on user rights that you linked [13] is particularly telling, as that isn't something you stumble across accidentally as a new user. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a false alarm. Please see [14]. I asked Bwilkins' advice on my behavior. I was confused whether my behavior was disrupting or not. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)It's a cleanstart account, not a new user. Nobody Ent 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't preclude them from being a a troll, and his added diff doesn't disprove that either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have e-mailed Coren my previous account name. User:Reaper Eternal has fired too many questions at me. Dennis! I am willing to explain all your doubts, if you have. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[15] This isn't a disruptive post, neither [16] is. You can call this [[17]] a adult question. Ask the user himself about [[18]] whether it is disruptive or what. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I held myself back from using the word "troll" to describe GBP more than once. Their unhealthy fascination with me (on both of my accounts) indeed has raised some concerns. Unrelated to that, I actually believe the original block on them was correct, based on WP:DUCK alone. Clearly, they have been around awhile - whether it's a valid cleanstart or a block-evasion, someone else can find out. Overall, they're a pain on the project so far - an unfortunate net-negative based on their entire editing pattern - not including the surreal attention I have garnered from them dangerous panda 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have intention of disrupting the project.If I had, I wouldn't have asked advice from you.My problem is, I am trying to adjust my self returning after 1 year. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note on Coren's talk page. I'm not inclined to offer any more good faith in this situation and think his input as CU is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen talk of getting checkuser input, but what exactly is it that you want us to do? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The user started their career with a checkuser block, which was then reversed due to a possibility of it being in error. I was wanting a second review, per contribs. Since Coren has received an email from the user and knows the circumstances best, I was thinking he would be the best to re-review. The contribs here are quite arguably trollish and Coren might be able to shine some light on the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little confidence that this editor is legitimate. The user contacted me after my original block giving a plausible explanation and naming an account as his past account after a clean start. His story was just coherent enough to give an AGF unblock – and no more. There are a number of other indicators of trouble and connected accounts that make the situation smelly enough that I had discussed the case (after my unblock) with the other functionaries in case someone recognized a long-term abuse pattern. While nothing concrete popped up, it's not clear how reasonable continued good faith remains reasonable at this point. — Coren ^(talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked - Based on the evidence here, including the opinions of ES&L, Reaper, myself and Coren, I have reinstated the original indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the block, unfortunately ... but expect a loud whine in 3...2...1... dangerous panda 15:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And he requests an unblock, while not logged in, and geolocating in the exact same geolocation and ISP as previous socks, thus further proving the sock issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of topic ban

I, User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) am under a temporary ban from starting new articles until I go through past entries to look for copyrighted material that are too long for fair use. I have been through my archive and reworded passages that were too close to the source material or that were cut and pasted that were too long to be considered fair use. I am hoping the ban can be lifted so I can create new content. Hundreds of entries from the Library of Congress collaboration have not been added because of the ban. I am much more careful so that I do not add copyrighted content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful if you link to the original ban discussion (so we can see the original terms), as well as link to some of the articles you fixed, so that a determination can be made with full information. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No thank you. You're were back at it very recently, even though you were under the restriction. dangerous panda 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bans aren't supposed to be permanent punishment but are to be used to curb active bad behaviour. If I have gone through my material as requested, what then is the purpose of the topic ban? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No thank you. - En Wikipedia has plenty of rubbish content without your cut and copy paste creations of low note subjects - better if you go and improve those that are already created and ignored by editors.Youreallycan 16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out a "low note subject" that I copy and pasted? If a subject doesn't meet GNG it would have been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are the creator of a massive amount of articles, yes? - they mostly will be of low note - that is just a basic fact - all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes?- you have been copy pasting content to the En Wikipedia project , yes? - so ... Youreallycan 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out at least one "low note subject" that I copy and pasted, instead of using the false logic you use above? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose given that you were blocked less than a month ago for violating the topic ban, removing it would appear to be attempting to achieve this via an alternative route. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per the recent block. Giant Snowman 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — per recent blocks and extensive block log. Thine Antique Pen (public) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Entirely too soon after coming off a block for violating the ban. You shot yourself in the foot by doing that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RM backlog escape

The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. I'm posting this request here following a referal from the teahouse. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Can somoeone put this debate out of its misery? I attempted WP:SNOW closure a while ago but someone reverted, and since then it's only garnere even more keeps, with 5 days still left to run. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With 24 edits (currently), you attempted a non-admin closure of a controversial AfD without marking it as a non-administrative closure and without even signing your, uh, decision. And someone reverted you? Gee, what a shock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's controversial about it? It's tanking keep. It was when I attempted closure, it still is now. The revert was only made on the basis that they believe it's not a SNOW case, it had nothing to do with the fact I failed to sign it or anything else as far they were concerned. Do you see something to gain for Wikipedia by letting the article be tagged for a further 5 days? Bearing in mind it's one click away from a number of links exposed to the masses via the Main Page both right now, and in a short time too. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the definition of controversial: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Several editors !voted delete in that AfD, so there clearly is disagreement (controversy) in the AfD. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the argument now is that a keep consensus has been established after the initial snow close. It might have been too early then but is sure as hell (mind the pan) justified now. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HeCameFromTheShadows, please tell us who you are a block-evading sock puppet of. --MuZemike 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-hominem. Address the argument, not the man, or take it to a proper venue. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Given that his very first edits were to remove the cleanup tags and then close the AfD, I think this user owes us an explanation. --MuZemike 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-lawyering and rules-parsing by a "new user" to retain articles? I'd bet a plugged nickel on A Nobody. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally a fast learner, but this time I am a bit slow: Why a plugged nickel? Either you bet something of value or you avoid speculation. Otherwise you are plain rude. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, however, that you'd lose your nickel in this case. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there was a SPI created a couple days ago in which this editor was mentioned; but it wasn't created correctly, so isn't listed at WP:SPI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, I have closed the discussion as snow keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help needed in ARBMAC area

Cross wiki POV pusher added unconsensus map to the ARBMAC area Kosovo article. I restored original neutral map that was in the article for years, and after that, several reverts occurred, last one by highly involved admin. Kosovo article is under 1RR parole, so i am asking for a some neutral admin to restore original map until talk page discussion is over. None is allowed to push its own povs without agreement, especially when nationalistic causes are fuel. So, admin should restore old consensus map, and wait for a new agreement on talk. We must follow rules. Old map must stay in article until (if) new map is agreed on. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 338: / Line 338: @@
 ::::::Otherwise. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 ::::::: I think, however, that you'd lose your nickel in this case. [[User:Black Kite|Black Kite]] ([[User talk:Black Kite|talk]]) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-::::For what it's worth, I spotted a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angryjo2012london|SPI]] in which this editor was mentioned; but it wasn't created correctly, so isn't listed at [[WP:SPI]]. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
+::::For what it's worth, there was a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angryjo2012london|SPI]] created a couple days ago in which this editor was mentioned; but it wasn't created correctly, so isn't listed at [[WP:SPI]]. --- [[User:Barek|Barek]] <small>([[User talk:Barek|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Barek|contribs]])</small> - 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 In other news, I have closed the discussion as snow keep. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i><sup>Talk</sup></i>]] 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards