Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 103 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 100 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 100 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 52 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 44 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 41 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	2	42	44
TfD	0	0	3	2	5
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	0	6	6
RfD	0	0	43	22	65
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 258 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 81 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 77 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)

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 76 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 66 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 36 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)

Requests for closure page

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

---

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure page has a significant backlog. Posting here for any administrators interested in helping to bring it up-to-date. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This section wouldn't have been necessary if you hadn't accidentally hidden that subpage. I have corrected your change here. Fram (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I accidently removed the closing </noinclude> in the intro when editing. The page remains significantly backlogged. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually think what is out of hand is the idea that an admin is needed to close a lot of these discussions. But as someone who does close a fair number of them I can tell you it is no mystery why it gets backlogged. It's work, and you tend to get yelled at a lot if you do your job right. And some of the stuff that has been there a long time is still there because nobody can figure out how to close it, or because it it is an extremely long discussion of an extremely trivial issue that is probably only of any interest whatsoever to the three or four people participating in the said discussion. Kind of a "what's the point" scenario as no matter what tou do they will just keep arguing about it anyway. However I will have a look through it and see if I can't knock down part of the backlog. Anyone else care to give it a go? By the way it is always helpful to use {{closing}} to avoid two admins working the same discussion at the same time. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've knocked down four or five but now RL is calling. Still plenty on the pile for anyone who wants to do some reading. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with you that an Admin is not required to close these sorts of discussions. Any uninvolved experienced editor should be able to do this - perhaps the problem is that this list is on the wrong page. Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Eternity clause (part 2)

Problems again with editor User:Ofthehighest at Eternity clause. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive239#Eternity_clause for my previous posts on this. Again, I don't want to see the editor blocked: he simply doesn't understand some basics about Wikipedia. I'm probably not the best person to be explaining it to him at the moment. Can someone who's a better explainer please have a gentle word with him? Thanks, Lone boatman (talk) 11:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Lone boatman is vandalizing the eternity clause article, because he insists on his political views being read first, i.e., his opinion that Germany's Basic Law is a "constitution". He has repeatedly and in violation of the reference he cited removed the word "democracy" and supplanted it with "constitution". And when I have brought it to his attention that the reference cited is not about changing a "constitution" or the "Basic Law," but about changing "democracy," he has now added the material about other countries which already in Wikipedia's article "entrenched clause". He has done this only to stop people from seeing that the article is about the 'eternity clause' in Germany. Lone boatman has also been vandalizing this article by censoring me. He claims that he is able to "paraphrase" things even though he has plagiarized (and after I correct it) claims he made new changes to paraphrase -- but is instead attempting to synthesize by supplanting the word "democracy" with "constitution". He has done this repeatedly even though the article he initially referenced is not about changing a "constitution" or "Basic Law," but about changing "democracy". And now, by adding material about entrenched clauses in other countries, he is attempting to conceal the article on German's eternity clause which has the Deutsche.de comparison article called Ewigkeitsklausel (or Ewigkeitsgarantie). The 'eternity clause' is the colloquial description of this entrenched clause in Germany. And Lone boatman has also found my blog and told me in Wikipidia talk that I had the wrong opinions and he then falsely and repeatedly accused me of using my blog as a reference. He has still not apologized for doing so after I repeatedly informed him that he had falsely accused me. His intent is to stop readers from reading what I have written on Wikipedia's article on the eternity clause. He has repeatedly deleted accurate paraphrases I have made which have been referenced correctly. I hereby request protection for this article. I would like to complete writing it without it being vandalized. Once it is written and approved by Wikipedia I would like Wikipedia to protect the article as it protects other articles here on Wikipedia. Why? Because the Deutsch.de article is totally false. The German people and people around the world need to know about the 'eternity clause,' the history affecting it and the fundamental principles of Germany's democracy it intends to protect.--Ofthehighest (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no comment on the content of the article (admins have no higher say than anyone else on content issues), but please both be warned that if you continue to edit war at this article, you stand a very good chance of being blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: I was under the impression that reverting deletion of referenced content wasn't considered edit-warring. I will refrain in future. Lone boatman (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Ofthehighest, when you are involved in a content dispute, you must not accuse the other party of vandalism - Vandalism has a very specific definition here, and disagreement over content or points of view is not included. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor Ofthehighest, I have at no point told you that you have "the wrong opinions". I note that you have also posted about me at the Dispute resolution board, claiming in this edit that "he has written to me saying that he disapproves of my views". This is bizarre fiction: I have never written to you about anything, ever, and I do not disapprove of your views. If you review my edits to the article, they clearly show that while I have indeed changed the wording of the article several times, I have never attempted to "censor" anything, only to revert repeated attempts at re-adding unreferenced WP:Original research and essay-like analysis. Other editors on the article's talk page have (before I turned up) expressed similar concerns about the WP:POV, WP:Editorializing tone of the article, but because I actually tried to edit the article for a more WP:Neutral point of view rather than simply complain about it, you've accused me of all manner of bad conduct. I don't expect to see a retraction of any of your accusations, but if you expect your claims to be taken seriously by administrators, then I suggest you provide WP:DIFFs here, showing a shred of evidence to support them. Lone boatman (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This has also been brought up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ofthehighest where I have blocked Ofthehighest for 1 week for repeatedly making false accusations of vandalism against others. De728631 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Crash message inside pages. "Failed to parse, cannot write to folder..."

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

---

Error Message: Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\

Seen on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_signaling

Example message inline:

To see why, consider a single-ended digital system with supply voltage Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\, . The high logic level is Failed to parse (Cannot write to or create math output directory): V_S\, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.35.208.21 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a Java failure. Yesterday I got an update to Java version 1.6.0_35, so I suppose most people installed this too. Please be sure to enable Java Console for your system and then reload the Wiki page in your browser. That should fix it. De728631 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, looks an edit conflict between RE and me. So apparently it was on the server side? De728631 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Semiprotection not working appropriately

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

---

It seems that semiprotection is no longer working correctly in that non-autoconfirmed users can edit semiprotected pages. (See this edit.) Requesting his user groups returns only "*" and "User". Furthermore, new users can also apparently move pages (this was stopped by an edit filter), and requesting his user groups returns the same lack of autoconfirmed. Am I missing something, or have some bugs managed to get committed into the codebase? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, here, but Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested appears to only be move-protected and not semi-protected... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I apologise for confusing you with the wrong template. The page is rightly not semi'd, but I could not edit it. There were so many brightly coloured boxes on the edit page, that I couldn't distinguish the problem. 78.146.252.101 (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

You can always use a {{Help me}} template to request help for issues where there isn't a specific request template. Monty₈₄₅ 19:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Use of Threat to Resolve Dispute

It has caught my attention that, as on the surface it appears, threat was used to resolve a dispute, and, thus, I would like to bring the following for your kind perusal.

User H tan H epi tas had threatened, "Watch your mouth and accept a third opinion. If you don't, User:Chaipau should file a complaint at the appropriate section" ([1]) - while user Chaipau did file complaint as per the threat against user Bhaskarbhagawati.

To assist further, I would like to add the following as well:

• User H tan H epi tas account was created just hours ago before giving third opinion in Assam talk page.
• User H tan H epi tas account became inactive again for few days after complaining against user Bhaskarbhagawati, which shows that H tan H epi tas was created for purposes. Here is his activity log ([2]).
• User H tan H epi tas threatened and user Chaipau implemented the threat - both users are same individual.

As per the requirements users H tan H epi tas and Chaipau are notified thru their talk page.

User Bhaskarbhagawati is also notified.

Appreciate it very much for your times. Thank you, --130.65.109.101 (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

H tan H epi tas (talk · contribs) has not edited in about 2 months, absent a positive finding at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau, I think the matter is stale. Suggesting someone file a complaint if behavioral norms are not followed is probably not wrong anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 20:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Re- supposed "use of threat": I think you need to get a life. I haven't threatened anyone. User:Bhaskarbhagawati was being rude, aggressive and accusative. I told him/her to watch their mouth and I advised User:Chaipau to take it further as per wikipedia regulations, since User:Bhaskarbhagawati did not accept the third opinion I provided. If anything, User:Bhaskarbhagawati and everybody else who stirred this up owe ME an apology. It's User:130.65.109.101 who should be checked out.

Read my reply about sockpuppetry here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaipau

I really don't have the time or the mood for your games.

--H tan H epi tas (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Can't say I care for either parties tone or all the uneccessary bolding in that discussion, but there is no "threat" and the SPI is utterly without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As suspected, IP 130.65.109.101 belongs to San Jose State University, California. It has been blacklisted by dnsbl.sorbs.net and SORBS Dynamic IP Addresses. Another student who abuses the university's resources and hides behind them. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggesting someone file a complaint if behavioral norms are not followed is probably not wrong anyway.

Appreciate it very much should you please post the link where such complaint may be filed for investigation.

abuses the university's resources and hides behind them

I am not hiding. I will be there to meet defendant face-to-face when needed. I see defendant already acknowledged "payback" - a return on an investment he made - this is good for him as penalty may be less. I am waiting for hearing.

It is not new thing that SJSU IPs have been hijacked where hijackers have been found to have come from countries like China, Burma, ...

Thank you

130.65.109.101 (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reading your text again, IP 130.65.109.101, are you or are you not writing from San Jose State University? Because your IP is that of said University. If you are not writing from the University, this means that you are hacking/using a proxy that hacks the IP and use it as a cover. Explain. --H tan H epi tas (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Happiness Mkuthawasi

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

---

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

---

I am the agent for Mr Happiness Mkuthawasi and I have created a page for him. An admin has placed a speedy deletion saying it is a hoax? Why is this? Thank you. --HisHealthAndWellbeing (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it is a hoax. You uploaded a picture of Steve Harvey, along with several other hoaxes you created using copyvio pictures, which you claim license to. I've indefinitely blocked the user. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Also  Confirmed:

• Jimme-Retchet (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• QuestionableThesis (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 17:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, all three accounts are sockpuppets of Technoquat (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 18:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Gustave

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

---

this hurricane was in 2008 not 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.74.20 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

See Hurricane Gustav (disambiguation); there have been 3 Hurricane Gustavs, and 2 tropical storms. Storm names are routinely recycled as long as they don't cause particularly large amounts of damage or loss of life. Monty₈₄₅ 15:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Motions regarding discretionary sanctions and Falun Gong 2

Pursuant to two motions voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, the following actions have been taken:

• Mandated external review (MER) has been explicitly adopted as a form of discretionary sanctions. In brief, editors subject to MER are restricted from making more than minor changes to an article in the area of conflict without first gathering consensus on the article's talk page.
• Users Homunculus, Ohconfucius, and Colipon, who were subjected to MER in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2, may only appeal their sanctions to the Arbitration Committee. Editors who are sanctioned by individual administrators in the future may appeal the sanction as they would any discretionary sanction.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 16:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

3 revert rule breaking and Sock-puppet (?) tag-team continual bullying

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

---

I am suffering some personal attacks on the Talk:Karaims page [3], [4], [5], I want to confess that I too am no longer guilt free as I also slipped into this revert war as this user seems to be a sock puppet of Toddy1 who sometimes confuses Nozdref's edits with his own I lost track. As Toddy1, Nozdref's reverts include [6], and [7]. As sockpuppet (?) Toddy1, Nozdref is also deleting my discussion comments and inserting them in inappropriate places. Nozdref has already been warned by admin on the discussion page concerning ad-hominem attacks. I have continually asked for assistance and called for constructive contributions to arrive at consensus instead of bullying, but top no avail. These two IDs are dead-set against a change even when they themselves bring up evidence calling for the rename. The final resort of these folks is to deteriorate the whole thing into personal attacks. I have an impeccable 9 year edit history on wikipedia. I would like something to be done about this please.If I have placed this message in the wrong place please can someone help. Kaz 18:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My initial take is that you are all acting in a reprehensible manner and if the mudslinging, which you have particpated in as much or more than the users you complain about. And edit warring. You've clearly been doing that. I think some short blocks or in order here to settle this nonsense down. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Nozdref and Kaz both blocked for 24 hours. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

Remedy 5 (Standard discretionary sanctions) of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles is amended as follows:

The words "and British baronets" are stricken from this remedy. The Committee reserves the right to restore sanctions to this area by motion, should a pattern of editing problems re-emerge. Existing sanctions which were placed prior to this amendment remain in effect (and unmodified) until they expire or are lifted via the normal appeals process.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero | My Talk 19:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Grant Shapps

..might be worth keeping an eye on. According to the Guardian, he's been naughty. Black Kite (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial pagemove

Okay, we have a page at Usharal, and a page created back in March at Ucharal. The former has been around 4 years and has more info, but it turns out that Ucharal is the right spelling. Since Ucharal has less content, and nothing but a Wikimapia link, it can be safely speedied to make way for the page move. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that the "ch" spelling is the correct one? Cyrillic ш is generally transliterated in English as "sh" (e.g., "Shostakovich"). "Ch" is generally the French way of transliterating it (e.g. Chostakovitch). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And anyways, ain't there an "non-controversial" section on the Requested Moves page that should be where to place this discussion? pbp 04:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC closure

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

---

Moved to WP:ANRFC. Jafeluv (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Battle of Raab

Resolved

 – Both editors blocked Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello! There is an edit war between users Doncsesz and DITWIN GRIM. The Kingdom of Hungary was NOT part of the Austrian Empire (or Holy Roman Empire), but there was a personal union between the two country since 1526. Please, protect the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have source (in Hungarian and also in English) about the presence of separate Hungarian forces in the Battle of Raab: [The last Hungarian insurrection in 1809. Doncsecz^talk 11:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked both editors for 24 hours (which may be being generous to Doncsesz given their history). However, please note that a) reports of edit warring should be made at WP:AN3 rather than here and b) you must notify editors you report here and at WP:ANI (and it's good practice to post notifications of reports to the other central noticeboards). As a comment, the extent of the edit warring here was horrible. I've also watchlisted the article, and will follow up on further edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Banning proposal for Dewan357

I really dislike formal ban proposals, but here goes one: Dewan357's status as a banned editor has been disputed by Drmies and the lack of such a formal indictment has been held out as a fig-leaf by Dewan357. As a result, I would like to see a formal ban placed on Dewan357. Why? Because of constant sock-puppeting, as documented in WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, and his recent reappearance as

1. 69.112.76.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. 149.151.144.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
3. 149.151.144.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
4. 174.255.113.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
5. 174.226.194.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
6. 174.226.194.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Kww(talk) 17:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Although Kww has provided a diff for a single edit regarding Drmies' objection, it's actually better to read the entire thread, which can be found here. Note that the portion of the dispute relevant here is not about whether Dewan357 should be community banned, but about whether he is currently "de-facto banned" and can therefore be dealt with as if he was already banned. In fact, Kww is apparently here in response to Drmies' suggestion that if he wants to deal with Dewan357 as if he is banned, he should start a ban discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You have the time-sequence reversed: this is in response to my earlier notification to Drmies that I had opened a formal ban discussion. I don't think there's any reasonable doubt that Dewan357 is de-facto banned, and view this as merely a formality to remove that as a debating point.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think there's quite a bit of doubt as to whether Dewan357 is "de facto" banned, and I wouldn't call any request to ban a user as "merely a formality". I skimmed through the SPI report, and it looks to me like you've invested quite a bit of time and energy in Dewan357 and his puppets, almost like owning a sock. Perhaps that's why you're unable to see this as clearly as someone more removed from it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't care one way or the other whether this editor gets banned or not. I have some specific problems here with KWW's way of handling this whole problem, which resembles a vendetta going back three years (as the SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dewan357/Archive, makes clear). If the editor is banned, fine--but I can't help but think it's the way in which we've handled this that has made it an ongoing problem. Please see the thread my talk page for more context, and perhaps comments on KWW's and Materialscientist's talk pages. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Frankly, I feel that Kww made this ban request solely to give himself more ammunition while misapplying WP:BAN and wikilawyering with the same. Ryan Vesey 22:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And your reason for not banning Dewan357 based on Dewan357's behaviour is ...?—Kww(talk) 22:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary wikilawyering. You know that you only want Dewan357 banned for personal reasons. Any possible chance Dewan357 has of ever editing Wikipedia again will not be changed by the existence of a ban. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Regardless of Kww's behavior, Dewan357's record as a prolific sockpuppeteer makes comminity banning appropriate. If he wants to be a prductive editor again after the ban, he should stop socking and fulfill the requireents of the standard offer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, you are certainly correct on the OFFER thing. Dewan has been watching my talk page, I think; maybe he's watching this as well. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm having difficulty finding the diffs, but Dewan357 has been through the BASC process, and lied about having been away for six months only weeks after having his last socks blocked. Anyone know where the BASC records are kept? If I remember correctly, my discussions with the BASC were via e-mail, and the e-mails are archived on a machine I won't have access to for a couple of weeks.—Kww(talk) 23:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question, aside from sockpuppetry, can someone point to this editor's problematic edits? Ryan Vesey 23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• His block log is a good place to start. Originally edit-warring, followed by socking in order to edit-war after having been blocked. Note that I never blocked the original account.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize, I was wondering if there have been any non-socking editing issues since 2009. (I'm not necessarily saying they don't exist; however, those wanting him banned should have provided the evidence.) Ryan Vesey 23:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No one tracks the quality of his edits. Only that he socks and lies in unblock requests (as can be seen at User talk:Dewan357).—Kww(talk) 23:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Seeing that you have no examples, my opinion is strengthened. Ryan Vesey 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Kww, you don't look at the quality of their edits. I did, and the ones I thought were useful I reinstated. And I have a hunch that don't articles won't be targets anymore. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In line with Ryan's question, I believe that the part of WP:BAN that Kevin is relying on for saying that Dewan357 is de facto banned is: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'." Yet, the SPI report is hardly a community discussion. So, what Kevin is really suggesting, in my view, is that an indefinitely blocked sockmaster at some unspecified point (persistence? prodigiousness? something else?), falls within the scope of those two sentences in the policy. But that's not what the policy says. Are we just banning him based on a pro forma recognition that he's a major sockmaster? If so, perhaps we should change the policy to permit such a ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not to be too obvious, but the socking is disruptive in and of itself, and doesn't require additional disruptive behaviors. And, yes, I would say that when an editor continues socking frequently for a long enough period of time, it does start to become bannable behavior -- and the community can determine for itself what it considers to be bannable, or not. I've seen any number of banning discussions here and on ANI based almost totally on a history of socking I see nothing different here, no ameliorating factor that would justify not banning. (Of course, some editors just don't believe that banning is necessary or effective in any case, but that's a different matter.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with you, BMK, including your ending parenthetical, and I'm not opposing the ban. I just like policy to be clearer. In part, this whole thing stems from a disagreement about policy; see also Jayron's comment below--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• The failed unblock requests at User talk:Dewan357 support the contention that no admin is willing to unblock him, and I rely on that as well.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have you read the failed unblock requests? There have been two in 2012. Both were done only because he did not answer the three relevant questions pointed to in Hersfold's decline. I disagree with the rationale behind Selket's decline but agree with the decline itself. (He attempted to answer the questions but didn't answer them in a satisfactory manner). Ryan Vesey 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose as superfluous and gravedancing. Doesn't actually have any functional effect on how we will treat editing from this person. Defacto ban is already in existance as far as I am concerned, and if I run across this person, I intend to treat them as any other banned editor. --Jayron32 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk Vandalism

User Toddy1 is vandalising discussions by deleting user comments from discussion pages on Talk:Karaims and Talk:Crimean Karaites and moving them to inappropriate locations [8] to hamper discussion on restoring the original name of the article in accordance with WP:UCN and WP:CRITERIA. Kaz 19:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(Non-admin observation) This looks like a good-sized WP:BOOMERANG headed in your direction. You inserted the header "Ad-Hominem Talk" into the talk page above another user's comments, violating WP:RTP in the process. You're also edit-warring and using IP sockpuppets. This should be good. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Evan for telling me about this report. Kaz did not.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologise I am not very aware of a lot of the policies on wikipedia, I was also under the impression that I had been blocked after opening this discussion [9] although that seems to have been placed there deceptively. But I am a sincere contributor who has been with wikipedia for 9 years with a clean history until Nozdref/Toddy1 came along. Unlike Nozdref, Toddy1 joined wikipedia already knowing all the rules and has been very careful to keep his IP hidden from the outset. That usually means an experienced editor got a bad name and had to creat a new account to start over again. I think it is worth baring in mind. Certainly I do make mistakes, but I always welcome being pointed to the relevant piece of policy. The issue at hand here here began with WP:UCN, and WP:CRITERIA being ignored by Toddy1 who at first I thought had a genuine desire for discussion and I bent over backwards to accommodate Toddy1's requests even joining him in making things more complicated for the admin who has to sort out the Move now. You will see from the Talk:Karaims however, that every request which I made for input on the article has been ignored by this user who simply looks for ways to stirr up conflict. I request a careful investigation of what has actually been happening and be careful not to be hoodwinked by deceptive edit summaries or so-called "factual chronologies" written by Toddy1 as everything is transparent on wikipedia the edit history facts do speak for themselves. Toddy is preventing progress for his own personal reasons and has become skilled at manipulating the rules to achieve his ends having been caught out in the past. Please do look through his edit summaries and edit wars and talk page discussions. You will see the same pattern. Look through mine too and you will see a not very skilled editor who has an interest in the histories and legends of Turko-Hunnic peoples like my own nation. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When Kaz talks about my moving discussion from Talk:Karaims to Talk:Crimean Karaites, he/she is talking about the POV fork he/she created from a redirect page after starting a move discussion on Talk:Crimean Karaites. This was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#User Kaz and Crimean Karaites/Karaims POV Fork. Eventually, Kaz restored Karaims to its status as a redirect page to Karaites.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How can starting the process to return an article to its original name be called a POV fork? Although I was interrupted (as it was pointed out to me that this is a complicated move which can only be done by a special type of admin), my initial intention was to restore the Karaims info back to the Karaims page, and allow editors like Toddy1 to start a new article about Karaite Jews in Crimea (if indeed he can find any sources about it) on the Crimean Karaites page. However, Toddy1 is not interested in Jewish Karaites but also agrees with the rest of us that the article is named wrongly [10] but for no logical reason continues to oppose WP:UCN and WP:CRITERIA. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz has repeatedly tried to insert the header "Ad-Hominem Talk" in front of comments by Nozdref. Both Nozdref and I object to this, but Kaz just keeps reinserting it. Nozdref was commenting on a summary of the move discussion that Kaz had written as 62.255.75.224, making it clear that he believed that Kaz and 62.255.75.224 were different people. I think the purpose of Kaz's header is to disguise this fact.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nozdref attempted to sully my good name by accusing me of criminal activity (when throwing mud at someone it does some how stick even when you try to brush it off) and started a smokescreen to repulse editors from reading through the dispute discussion right in the middle of it. It is my right to insert a title to a discussion section which attacks me and which distracts editors from the point (which one should point out is exactly what you are doing here for some reason other than an interest in Karaims). Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Evan is right in saying that Kaz edits some of the time as an IP editor. On Crimean Karaites and Talk:Crimean Karaites, he/she has used:

• 62.255.75.224. You can see Kaz's admission of this on [11]. After he/she admitted this, he/she changed the signatures of his various posts as 62.255.75.224 on the talk page to Kaz. He/she had been exploiting the fact that other users thought that Kaz and 62.255.75.224 were different people before that.
• 86.26.236.107. When asked about this one, Kaz neither confirmed nor denied it.[12] He gave part of his answer in Russian, saying that it was an intrusive question affecting his safety.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I answered clearly about that user in Toddy1's alleged first language without causing offense. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• 81.103.120.143. Notice that on one occasion this IP edited Kaz's user page. There was no protest about this from Kaz as I would have expected if the IP had been a different person. Here, the IP editor commented on Crimean Karaites.[13] This is where Kaz some months later posts his agreement with what the IP editor said.[14]

I suspect that the two editors in his Wikipedia:WikiProject Karaimism/Members are really Kaz. Their recent edit histories do suggest this. Note that this Wikiproject was created by Kaz on 29 August 2012‎.

• Special:Contributions/Muthmar Muthmar's only two edits on Wikipedia were the next day.
• Special:Contributions/Danage Danage had not edited Wikipedia since 2008, but suddenly updated his user page on 29 August and expressed support for Kaz' position on 30 August.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The sock-puppet accusation against me has already been raised by Toddy1 and dismissed and archived. I sometimes get logged out of wiki when my browser is closed and you can see all of the comments of my IP and my user name are consistent with the mentality of one person. I have sometimes edited from the houses of family in Cardiff who also enjoy wikipedia, so any IP address from Cardiff which match my User name are more than likely me or one of my family members. I do not hide who I am. But I am happy to have the IPs investigated to see if the users Toddy1 says I am are in fact me. As far as I know there is no crime in accidentally editing without logging in and this happens all the time to normal users who have nothing to hide. Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

During the discussion, Kaz has made legal threats to Nozdref.[15] This was discussed at User talk:Dennis Brown#Legal threats. In addition, Kaz has repeatedly made abusive comments about other users, which can be found on Talk:Crimean Karaites.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The so-called legal threat to nozdref was never made, but was a mis-placed comment intended for another location which I accidentally pasted in the wrong browser window and saved when I was in a hurry. Nevertheless it was dealt with effectively and careful knowledge of the motivation behind the WP:NLT reveals that it did not apply in this case anyway. As for repeated abusive comments which I made, I would like one to be pointed out to me please.

The issues Toddy is bringing up are ones which have already been closed or removed from here. I think this is just another smokescreen tactic to delay constructive discussion on encyclopaedic $article building. Back to the topic. My question is simple. Is Toddy1 in violation of good conduct and vandalism? Yes or no? If yes, does should he be blocked? If you want to block me too I think that is the topic of the other two discussions.Kaz 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes i did edit the page to correct the typos and I am not Kaz. MuthMar —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kaz, there is no evidence that Toddy1 has engaged in vandalism. Please follow that link as it seems you don't know what the word means. As I said in the last theead you opened you have behaved terribly during this affair. I would have thought that you would have learned something from the way the last discussion boomeranged on you, but apparently not. I can't believe you have the nerve to keep this up when you have acted as bad or worse than the two users you are complaining about. And all of you need to cut it out with the accusations of sockpuppetry. If you have any actual evidence, file at WP:SPI. As to the underlying content dispute, you should probably head over to WP:DRN since you don't seem to be able to have a civilized discussion amongst yourselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:IronGargoyle has broken Wikipedia rules

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.

WP:BOOMERANG--Jayron32 01:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

---

You do realise that User:IronGargoyle has deleted the Fantastic Shabalanga page while the page was still in the middle of an articles for deletion discussion? See this please.

Also, under the reasons User:IronGargoyle has to delete it, this user wrote "Speedy deleted, vandalism" even though the page was not under a speedy deletion template and there was no evidence that there was any vandalism there. No one complained of vandalism, not even any admins. They just complained of notability, even though I provided an external link. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) yet? I assume not, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting our time with nonsense like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have read that, but I invite you to tell me what part of what I have said is nonsense? In essence all of what I have written above is true is it not? There was NO speedy deletion notice, and was NO complaint of vandalism and this user CLOSED the debate before it had finished! Please comment on that User:AndyTheGrump. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing the article and discussion, this seems to meet both WP:CSD#A7 and WP:SNOW in spades. I see nothing that was done wrong here. --Jayron32 00:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment suggest you review WP:AN#Happiness_Mkuthawasi too.--Robert Keiden (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jayron32- The snowball clause is not policy, it reads that in the article therefore your comments do not read much. I have linked Jimbo Wales to this debate on his talk page. Clearly this is a serious matter and we need a higher power to resolve this. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

However, WP:CSD#A7 is policy. I don't see how involving our founder in this will help matters.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, please don't post this in too many places, because otherwise it looks like forum shopping and/or canvassing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone please block this chap as a sock. His behavior, coupled with Robert Keiden (talk · contribs)'s link, makes it beyond obvious that he is the latest incarnation of Technoquat (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflict) Kijoorete-Bahnhof sounds an awful lot like the latest Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Technoquat. Another sock User:RouteLeader recently posted to the help desk about adult diapers [16] and so did Kijoorete-Bahnhof [17]. RouteLeader also filed a silly complaint here [18] as a brand new account, and posted to Jimbo [19]. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting. Kijoote-Bahnof just edited Jimbo's talk page by inviting him to this thread.[20] --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 01:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Regardless of socking or not, the canvassing and the failure to listen here seem to be leading to a a hard hit for the OP, especially if they post at another place about this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I am indef blocking Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk · contribs) for general disruption. He may also be a plausible sockpuppet account, but his general disruption is sufficient cause for the block. If he can convince someone at his talkpage that he is here for constructive purposes, anyone is welcome to unblock. MBisanz ^talk 01:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You will be surprised to find that I have no idea who User:Robert Keiden is. Nor do I know what a Technoquat is either. And 'block as a sock' makes no sense to me. I believe this discussion is going off course which is why I invited Jimbo Wales. Can we please get back to the point of why User:IronGargoyle did what he did? Thank you. --Kijoorete-Bahnhof (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

'block as a sock' is short for "account block because you are using a sockpuppet account". I think we've explained to you enough about why IronGargoyle did what he did and didn't do what he didn't do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note:  Likely this is Technoquat, i'm running checks for sleepers and an IP block now if possible. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Arzel consistently poor behavior

Having been subject to snide remarks by Arzel and witnessed him make such comments to others, I am making a formal complaint here. The conduct of this editor is questionable. For example, just from his last 100 edits we have:

• battleground behavior, assumptions of bad faith, uncivil discourse: [21][22][23][24][25][26]

• pettifog retribution: [27][28]

• clear political agenda: [29][30][31][32][33]

I repeat: that's just cherry picked from the last 100 edits. There are so many violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, and WP:BATTLEGROUND that it's not even worth counting. Also see his talk page for more.

I would very much appreciate it if admins could take a look at this and issue whatever warnings/topic bans/blocks they feel appropriate. Kerfuffler (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite clear that this editor is a WP:SOCK of either a previously banned user or a current user. This editor has had almost no edit history until one week ago, and has the audacity to try and get me blocked even though I have had almost no interaction with him? I think it is probably a retaliation from the Still incident a few days ago. Arzel (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This report is about your conduct, not mine. —Kerfuffler 02:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(It can very well become about you at any moment. Be aware of that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC))

I am curious, since I have basically no interaction with you why the sudden interest? I havn't even hardly made any edits today much less any interaction with you. Only one of the edits listed above even remotely involves you. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If you must know, I believe the behavior I cited harms Wikipedia, wastes many people's time, and drives away positive contributions. Thanks for reminding me to state that here, but the evidence speaks for itself. —Kerfuffler 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well now you are wasting my time if makes you feel better. Also, your signature removed your talk page link. Not sure if that was intentional, but you might want to fix it to make it easier for other editors to talk to you. Arzel (talk) 03:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I also was amazed and on their talk page complimented Kerfuffler on their amazing progression, able to use policy to do battle by their 20th lifetime edit, and offer complex policy reasons for deletions in battle by their 60th lifetime edit. Also by that time they were expert enough to say that the did an overall review of several experienced editors (via reviewing their talk histories) and declaring their (negative) findings on those editors overall as fact. North8000 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of bad faith assumptions from Arzel and North8000 here. Is there any evidence that Kerfuffler is a "SOCK of either a previously banned user or a current user"? If not, the both of you should shut up. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's pretty damn obvious. Regards, — Moe ε 03:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be obvious, but you need to tell us the "of whom"-part; otherwise, the suspicion is useless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this empty sock claim a useless suspicion, it's also a transparent attempt to change the subject away from Arzel's bad behavior. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it quite problematic that Arzel has not even recognized the problem. —Kerfuffler 06:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not quite clear on why this venue was chosen or what results are being asked for, but regardless of where it's being discussed, the topic of Arzel's aggressive behavior seems like a fair one. I would only suggest, in advance, that we avoid crude tools such as blocking. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was hesitant to name a specific sanction because I felt the discussion would quickly derail into the specifics. As for why here, there are pretty much only five options for conduct issues, two of which are not yet applicable, and this is serious enough that I felt it needs admin attention. —Kerfuffler 08:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No offense intended to Arzel, but statisticians and industrial engineers are quite possibly the most stubborn people on the planet. Considering Arzel is both, I would say this thread is a waste of time. You should file an RFC/U if you think it is needed. Otherwise, this will go nowhere. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Without in any way defending Arzel, I have to agree that this is not the procedurally correct approach. Not sure that an RFC/U is better, but it can't be worse than this. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1) Not all "knowledgeable" accounts are socks: some are former IP's, some are cleanstarts, some are legitimate alternate accounts.

2) When an AN or ANI is filed, all parties will have their interactions reviewed.

3) As the OP is trying to show a pattern of behaviour, WP:RFC/U is the best place for that.

dangerouspanda 10:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Guys, WP:RFC/U specifically says I must attempt to resolve it other ways first. Not applicable… yet. —Kerfuffler 10:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kerfuffler stated on their own talk page that they have No. As far as I can recall, I have never used any other Wikipedia account. I have noticed that it makes some people nervous that I've actually read many of the policies and guidelines, though. Kerfuffler (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC) I suppose this is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. I have been here long enough to identify legitimate new users, and he is not one of them. Arzel (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So does ANI :-) Did you try to resolve issues directly with them on their talkpage? Did you take civility issues to WP:WQA? Did you take any content-related issues to WP:DRN? It's pretty easy to have hit the other ways first (before even bringing it to ANI) dangerouspanda 10:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, this isn't WP:ANI. There are far too many of these pages, and it's absolutely unclear what the right one really is; e.g. WP:WQA seems to be for current issues (not long-term patterns), WP:ANI is for problems that need immediate attention, etc. This seems to be a long-term pattern of abuse, and really should be a WP:RFC/U issue, but I felt I should make a good faith attempt to bring the issue forth before that. So here we are. Now, would anyone like to comment on the substance? —Kerfuffler 10:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that some admins gave Belchfire a stern warning, and he seems to have backed down, so I was hopeful that it might work here. —Kerfuffler 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that this was purely an attempt to intimidate me? Arzel (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh Arzel, that was not helpful - but indeed, if you were indeed being a WP:DICK, then proper warnings/change of behaviour was pretty important. Kerfuffler: AN is for admin announcements, this filing actually did belong on ANI, so we're treating it as if it was. Good faith attempts to resolve take place in the places I noted - AN/ANI is for immediately urgent things dangerouspanda 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Arzel seems to have made his position clear. (Check the summary.) —Kerfuffler 14:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To save anyone from clicking the link I called this action that of a WP:TROLL since I have had basically no interaction with Kerfuffler to this point, and I find it exrememly dubious that such a "new" editor have such an extensive knowledge of WP policies and tools to have never edited at WP before now. Arzel (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Moving from Paralympic volleyball to Sitting volleyball

I ask if an administrator, please, can make the move required, as seems to have been reached a consensus. --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be best to let the RfC run at least a week so more people can chime in. Not that I have any objections, just seems to be a very quick "consensus", and there is a redirect already in place. — ChedZILLA 06:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The question is: it's so obvious (the name is officially recognized by the IPC), and this topic is not very common here on Wikipedia, could spend weeks without anyone intervening in the discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has moved it by the end of the week, and the RfC is still that way (unresponsive) - ping my talk page and I'll log into my admin. account <sigh> to move it for you. — ChedZILLA 08:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Relaxation of restrictions for Barts1a

Hey folks. I've been talking to Barts1a (talk · contribs) recently about relaxation of his current restrictions. They were put in place by community consensus at the end of 2010, and I do believe he's improved since then. His four current restrictions are:

1. He is topic banned from all noticeboards
2. He is not allowed to use Huggle
3. He should avoid contentious articles and their talk pages, and
4. He is subject to a 1RR restriction, i.e not allowed to revert more than once per day in a dispute

Regarding the contentious articles, I'm not sure why this one was originally put in, as that's not where his issues lay. I am proposing the provisional removal of 1) noticeboard topic ban and 3) contentious articles.

The provision (which Barts1a suggested himself) is that if any report is lodged by him which an uninvolved administrator sees as frivolous and/or trivial will result in the noticeboard ban being reinstated indefinitely with a minimum term of 18 months. I would go further and suggest that an uninvolved administrator believes he is being disruptive at noticeboards or contentious articles in the next 6 months, then the topic ban should be reinstated. Regarding the other two restrictions, I don't really see a need to formally remove them, as I'd recommend he stuck to them even if they were removed.

To allow Barts1a to comment on this proposal, I am giving him leave to comment in this section on this noticeboard. Worm^TT(talk) 12:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've had a look through all of Barts1a's talk page archives, to get an understanding of what the problems were. As Barts1a has successfully been through mentorship (for which I offer my congratulations), I'm largely in favour of this relaxing of conditions. But I think I'd like to see a continuing agreement to not try doing "admin" things on noticeboards (like AIV). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Remove all but one of the restrictions. If he returns to his old behavior he won't be doing it for long. I agree with Boing on AIV--there is no reason for him to be there. In fact, I'd favor keeping the topic ban for all noticeboards in place unless he's filing a case or is being dragged there, or otherwise explicitly invited, like for the annual admin hopeful Christmas cocktail party. Drmies (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Per Boing, I'm largely willing to give relaxing the noticeboard restriction a try, as I think Barts has made some large strides recently. However, he should definitely keep in mind that trying to do "admin things" seems to be his prime path to trouble, and avoiding those, especially while commenting on noticeboards, is best. I'm a little more wary of lifting the contentious article ban, because I still have the sense that tact and restraint are not his biggest talents, but I'm willing to give him a crack at proving me wrong, especially with the suggested provision that the bans can be reinstated by an uninvolved admin if necessary.

  Pretty much also in line with Worm's suggestions, I would prefer the Huggle restriction not be lifted at this time (when you're on uneven footing wrt judgment, Huggle is a recipe for disaster waiting to happen) and that 1RR stay in place (gotta crawl before you can walk - once we see how he handles himself on contentious articles, then we may want to discuss whether this restriction can be lifted). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth the new Cluebot has pretty much made Huggle obsolete and 1RR should be followed by everyone anyway excepting obvious vandalism reverts. I'm for deleting all of the restrictions and giving Barts full responsibility for his actions. He has made major strides since these restrictions were put in place, but at some point he must sink or swim. After two years and two mentors I'd say it's time. N419BH 19:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism in Tusi article

Please take action against vandalism in the article. Participants take away a Stamp of Azerbaijan dedicated to the 800th anniversary of Tusi. They say that the stamp states Tusi was "Azerbaijani". But there is no so information on the stamp. The stamp refers to Iranian Azerbaijan, where Tusi spent most of his life. --Interfase (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Stubes99 is not Doncsecz

Dear Administrators! I'am blocked because the user:Stubes99, but this is not my sockpuppet! I'am not sockpuppet-master. 81.183.39.173 (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.49.41 (talk)

(Non-admin comment) You were answered here: User talk:Callanecc#Stubes99 is not my sockpuppet LlamaDude78 (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Invoking the standard offer

Evangp (talk · contribs) would like to invoke the WP:Standard Offer. He has been blocked since 29 Sept 2010 and his only sock was immediately after that block. It's been 2 years since that block and 2 years since he socked. Below is his message:

It has been 2 years since I was blocked and have learned my lesson and understand why I was blocked. I will no longer abuse email and talk pages or use sockpuppetry. This block is not necessary anymore as I promise not to disrupt or damage wikipedia anymore. I hope you reconsider and unblock me....I was a lot younger when I was blocked and have since matured....My behavior was inappropriate because it was damaging and disruptive to wikipedia. I intend to take make proper edits and to create appropriate articles. I intend to edit concert venues, but may find myself editing other articles if my interests change.

The "..." are because the quotes came from different field in the ticket. Anyway, I asked for more information:

In the past I've never threatened or used profanity - all I've ever done was create articles about concert venues that (according to some) didn't meet wikipedia standards. Honestly, I created many of my articles in hope others with more knowledge on the subject would contribute. I want the ability to create articles under "evangp" and not be considered a sockpupet. I think being banned for two years is sufficent punishment and my ban should be lifted. My past shows I am not here to damage wikipedia - I think that is very evident. Please unban my account. Regards, Evan

Please discuss an unblock and under which, if any, conditions.--v/r - TP 14:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• 2 years already, and nothing nasty in the past - let him back, with no conditions other than those we all work under. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Can I gently suggest that you consider the contributions of Buttchunker (talk · contribs)? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see lots more creating of unsuitable articles, but is there anything more than that? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a user who was socking three days ago can't exactly claim to have met the terms of the standard offer, so if that was him that option is off the table. And engaging in the exact same behavior that led to the initial block is not exactly encouraging either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't spotted that it was so recent - in that case, what Dennis says, below... -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• How comfortable are we in the linkage between Buttchunker and Evangp? He was blocked for disruption, not socking. MuZemike added the tag afterwards. If a CU was run and we know they are linked, then this is a non-starter. Otherwise, I'm a forgiving guy and would have said yes without reservation. We need to ask Muze how sure he is of the linkage, however, as that is entirely too recent. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing their edits and the timing of this request I feel pretty comfortable with that linkage even without CU evidence. Too many coincidences. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)