Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Preemptively commenting that I have been sick for the past couple of days: not seriously, but enough that I feel like I haven't had the mental energy to give this the attention it deserves. It has not slipped my mind. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 10 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

(Initiated 8 days ago on 7 September 2024) Restored from archive. Admin closure requested. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Done by StarMississippi. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 105 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:National Rally#RFC: What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

(Initiated 87 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 85 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 70 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 62 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

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

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 53 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 41 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

(Initiated 40 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

(Initiated 37 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

(Initiated 36 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 34 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 30 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Algeria#RfC on ethnic groups in the infobox

(Initiated 20 days ago on 26 August 2024) Greetings closing admins, I would like to request a closure of RfC discussion of Algeria Algeria RfC discussion as the discussion has stabilized and it is due for closure. --Potymkin (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Potymkin: It's not due for closure, as it's been open for 19 days not 30. The last comment was four days ago, at 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC), so I also don't think that it's stabilised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you for your output and also for correcting my form, I apologize for mistakes i made in the template on this form as this is my first time. I have made wrong judgement when I read " 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." I fully trust your judgement that the discussion is not yet ready for closure. the person who started the RfC @Kovcszaln6 said in UserTalk Page " In order to avoid any future trouble (see WP:INVOLVED) I decided that it's best if I don't close the RfC myself. As I have stated, I'd suggest that you request the RfC's closure at WP:RFCL" so what do you recommend I do next ?

Delete the Template and I restate it in 11 days ?

or keep the templete until it ticks 30 days have passed ? Potymkin (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rename and re-theme ITN: request for an early close

(Initiated 3 days ago on 12 September 2024) There is almost unanimous consensus to close this RfC early, but I think this needs an uninvolved closer. There's currently an ongoing RFCBEFORE discussion in anticipation of a workshopped RfC on the future of ITN, so a quick review of this close request would be greatly appreciated. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

5 to 9 (just counting heads) is not "unanimous". Neither is a list of several opposers supporting close (with one supporter "ambivalent", and one of the RFC opposers opposing the early close). And a rename proposal doesn't interfere with whatever other discussions you may be having. If some future discussion does even more - great - consensus can change, after all. RFCs run for 30 days. And this one should too. - jc37 21:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the discussion about an early close being nearly unanimous, not the RfC itself. A closer here will weigh the arguments and make an appropriate decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:New South Wales Police Force#RFC - former police officers Rogerson and McNamara crimes in 2014

(Initiated 40 days ago on 6 August 2024) Hello. Could an uninvolved editor please summarise and close this discussion. Thanks Melbguy05 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	12	20
TfD	0	0	1	4	5
MfD	0	0	4	3	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	27	19	46
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

(Initiated 66 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

(Initiated 65 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_9#All-Star_Batman_and_Robin

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 36 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 27 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 28#Category:Education scandals and controversies

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 August 2024) I think this is an easy one, both to close and to implement – {{db-xfd}} is your friend for non-admins :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2#Category:LGBT YouTube celebrities

(Initiated 14 days ago on 2 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 284 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 133 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 111 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 109 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 99 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 77 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

(Initiated 25 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 20 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 19 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for "Tailsman67"

There has been discussion on AN/I regarding the latest issue with User:Tailsman67. This user was previously indef blocked for disruption and was considered de facto banned but was later given some rope and allowed back briefly before being idef blocked again. Currently, they have been harassing User:Sergecross73 and block evading via several IPs leading to several range blocks being imposed to deal with him as well as generally disruptive edits on various AFDs and articles. There was a consensus for a formal community ban proposal to be discussed here. For those who haven't been following the drama surrounding this user, please refer to Salvidrim's summary here as well as the ANI linked above. I'm posting this here as I made the initial suggestion for a community ban proposal of this user. Also included for discussion would be whether Tailsman67's latest activity warrants yet another range block. I'll notify the user on their most recently used IP and cross posting to the ANI. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Quick correction -- I do not believe any of the user's IP were ever indef blocked; there was repeated blocks and a number of rangeblocks, however. I would recommend reading the previous AN/I threads found on the summary page, and perusing the various IPs contributions for further clarification. Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• If any other editors have noticed that "Tailsman67" is not a registered username, I just checked ANI and it appears that it's the name used by an individual editing with the IPs 98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Also, I corrected your link to the ANI thread, Blackmane. Hope you don't mind. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Yea, I fixed the links also, heh. :) Salvidrim! 12:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Haha, well you actually fixed them the right way.. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, thanks for fixing those. It was doing my head in trying to work that bit out and trying to do so late at night after a couple of beers wasn't the wisest idea. I believe the range blocks were 6 month blocks. Blackmane (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. The longest rangeblock was for 6 months. Salvidrim! 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban - Per my comments at the ANI subsection. It's been over a year and over 7 blocks and still no improvement. Sergecross73 msg me 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Enough is enough. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 17:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban - It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not a productive user, and has been a time sink for far too long. AniMate 19:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - The user has had more than enough chances... sufficient time has been wasted for me to believe there is little probability of this user becoming a constructive part of the encyclopedia anytime soon. However, despite everything, he has shown dedication and occasionally good faith editing, thus I believe in a year or more, a successful return is not out of the question... but we'll see then and there. Salvidrim! 22:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - more than adequate time has been given for this editor to reform. KillerChihuahua 12:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Well you can't say I never tried to help this place but since it's almost the end of the month,oh bye,wait what happens if I see vandalism?Well it doesn't matter if I get banned,all I want you to know is that I tried,thank you Salv for giving me a chance,thanks Serge for helping me out,giving me pointers,and sorry AniMate for not being good enough.98.71.62.112 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(Responding assuming that the above IP is Tailsman67 again) If you become banned, as the above appears likely to do, then you are banned. You should not edit the project for *any* reason. You're likely best off not reading the project either, to avoid temptation. If you see vandalism, you do not get a pass to fix it. Banned is banned. You will be banned from making any edits, helpful or otherwise. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay see you in later unless i get ban,then see you never.But can someone tell me what the mean of disruptive editor means,I keep thinking it means an editor who is unneeded.98.71.62.112 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, if you're blocked, you're already not supposed to be editing as the block applies to a person. A WP:BAN means you've been a disruptive editor after the block as well. It doesn't mean someone who is "un-needed", more like "someone who continuously fails to follow the rules and policies of the site in a manner that make more and more people do more and more work to correct the problems caused by said person" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support - I agreed with the others; We don't need people like him here. Apparently judging from Salvidrim's special page, Talisman67 appears to have a hard-on for his and Sergecross73's edits and makes things hell for them. Banned is indeed banned, you are to be excommunicated and be made a nonperson for all I care. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Banning isn't likely going to make him or her go away. Anyway, I've always opposed banning because the user will most likely go into sock puppets. --Hinata talk 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you read up on this very closely? This user has never had an account, he's always IP-hopping. His entire time here can be classified as a giant case of sockpuppetry (or IP hopping at least), so the fear that it will "most likely go into sock puppets" doesn't make any sense. I can't find the dif anymore, but he has told me before that the only reason he doesn't create an account is because he feels he can avoid any sort of indef block/ban if he never commits to a Username, but instead IP hops. Do you want to reinforce this line of thinking? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I still fail to see him or her banned when he already cannot edit on his or her account. I always thought banning was useless because Wikipedia has limitations of understanding who really is who when IP addresses can change, bans are generally ineffective. In fact, it probably makes them to vandalize more in my opinion. --Hinata talk 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It'd be helpful because it would greatly cut down on the time wasted on his antics. Right now, he shows himself, and then we have to wait until there's 3 or 4 instances of being disruptive, take notes, and present it to an Admin or ANI, and wait for a response/reaction/block. With a ban in place, we can cut straight straight to the chase and block him on sight. No more wasting of the time of constructive editors such as myself. After 7+ cycles of doing this, it's getting rather tiresome, especially when you see it unfold the same way every time. I'm tired of so much babysitting and cleanup. I want to work on content creation, or more pressing Admin stuff, but I can't because every time I turn around he's leaving ludicrous advice on a talk page, saying something nonsensical at an AFD I'm participating in, or making a terrible, sloppy edit on an article I'm trying clean up. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The user has no account. Always different IPs. The ban would greatly reduce time-wasting by making revert-and-block-on-sight unquestionably and swiftly enforceable. The other option would be long-term rangeblocks on his three ranges but I believe that has a higher risk of collateral damage. Salvidrim! 09:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I am in full support of blocking this user indefinitely in order to save the obviously large and tedious amount of effort that has gone into reverting this user's malicious behavior. However, I am not in full support of indefinite IP blocks. Back when I was editing on public computers anonymously, I found it very difficult to edit, as many of my school's computer IP's had been blocked as the result of similar malicious behavior. I understand that he or she is a major problem, but if in fact this user is using public computers (especially at a school, college, university, etc.) it can have the potential of having other indirect consequences. So I propose that, instead of indef blocking all of the IP's, indef block the more-frequently used IP's, and put a range-block on the rest. Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 17:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A ban wouldn't be indef blocking all his IPs or anything, he just wouldn't be alowed to edit, and it would just give us the ability to block him on the spot as soon as we figure out it's him. (Which usually doesn't take long, he typically makes people plenty aware, and even if he didn't, has a certain style of sloppy writing that is easy to identify.) Anyways, I'm pretty sure 1) IP blocks are rarely are indef ones, for the reasons you just explained, and 2) I don't think we'd really even need to go back and block any of the "old" ones, he rarely revisits old IPs. (He described why once. I think it was something along the lines that his Firefox browser had a random IP generator/change thing, and once it changed, he couldn't really go back to the old ones anymore. Or something along those lines.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have heard that Firefox can randomize your IP's. If this is indeed the case, then any type of long-term IP block would be appropriate. Freebirdthemonk ^Howdy! 05:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, he has no account and had never revisited a previously used IP. The proposal is that the ban could be enforced by, for example, 30-day blocks for any IP he is found using, revert all contribs as per WP:BAN, and do something else until next time, which will be a different IP. Salvidrim! 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - User is already defacto banned. Just tag the account banned. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • We wanted something more formal. Even the Admin who declared the De Facto ban, Animate, recommended doing this, and !voted "Support", so I'm not sure I understand you when you say "Oppose"... Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bans are a waste of time. Also, we should be more welcoming and willing to work with people who don't always agree on everything. Perhaps mentorship is preferable. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
      • We've already tried that. He's been around for well over a year, where he has been given many opportunities. After his 6 month block expired, a few months ago, I gave him one last shot and tried to help him, and he just resorted back to his old ways. That's why we're back at ANI/AN regarding him. The problem isn't about "agreeing on things", it's about his lack of willingness, or ability, to comprehend what the most very basic concepts of Wikipedia are. "Disagreements" aren't an issue; as far as I can remember, consensus has been against him literally every time. It's that I'm tired of all the warnings, cleanup, and babysitting. Your comments show you've done little to nothing to understand this particular situation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I understand that you oppose here because you believe the user is already banned, which isn't correct, since no community consensus supports that (before this discussion)? I'd like to know, regardless of AniMate's declaration months ago (but in light of his Support here, as well as that of others), if you believe the user is constructive to the project? Over a year of welcoming and mentorship failed to change anything in the user's behaviour. Salvidrim! 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as the unfortunate but logical and necessary result of actions leading to this point. --Nouniquenames 15:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed in making community ban official

So, there seems to be a lot going on here at AN today, so I understand if this isn't first priority, but I just wanted to point out that it seems like discussion is winding down, and there's unanimous support for a community ban for Tailsman67 and all of his IPs. I'm just requesting help with finalizing this, partially because I've never done that aspect of of things before, and partially because of being "involved". Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

O'Dea's block by Hex

Unarchived. I'm removing the archive template, leaving Fluffernutter's archive text below:

This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving is for when discussion is petering out, not for when it's ongoing but somebody thinks people should "go back to their corners". This isn't a lot like the boxing match the "corners" metaphor implies, anyway, since the parties are unequally matched (=one has a block button). (I'm planning to write something below very soon.) Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

---

I've just undid Hex's block on O'Dea - I see no reason to block and all the reasons to unblock. Didn't contact the blocking admin because with all these negotiations the block might expire and even though it's short this doesn't make it less outrageous. Max Semenik (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. What is it with admins rushing to unblock without discussion - always a poor move.--Scott Mac 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The block was blatantly incorrect, and unblocking was obviously the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Posting here and getting a second opinion first would have been better. That's all I'm saying. If the block is plainly bad, a couple of others will endorse you and then you are not imposing your judgment over that of the blocking admin. If blocks can be bad judgement (and they can) so can unblocks.--Scott Mac 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • When the block is so obviously an abuse of admin tools, there's no prior discussion needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Jaw-droppingly bad blocks like this one are best immediately reversed, and discussed later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, but... The problem is that one admin's "Jaw-droppingly bad block" isn't another's. With a bad block the blocker has made a bad judgement call - however, humility tells me that when I judge it as such, it is entirely possible I've missed something, or indeed that others would say my judement is bad. So, unless we want one admin simply overriding the judement of another, it is best to take 5 min and come here for a sanity check. If it is obviously bad, you'll get your unblock call endorsed immediately. Much less dramatic than risking the lone gunman stuff.--Scott Mac 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah in general it might be best to come somewhere like here and get a second opinion before undoing a block, but this kind of situation is definitely the exception. This is why WHEEL is worded the way it is, I think. There are cases—like this—where we want the damage from really poor administrative actions to be minimized as much as is possible. It was probably pretty obvious to MaxSem that if the unblock was the wrong move then O'dea was not going to do anything too harmful during the short period of time it would have taken ANI here to come to a consensus to reinstate the block. I think this unblock was the right move, even before coming here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I don't think that this was quite an "abuse of admin tools", but a block for not using edit summaries is clearly unjustified given that no policy requires them, and many experienced editors chose to not sure them. As such, I think Max did the right thing by lifting this block without delay and reporting the matter here for additional opinions on his and O'Dea's actions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

  He hadn't actually "not used edit summaries" - the blocking admin just didn't think one of them was good enough, and blocked when it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about policy. That's abuse in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Wrong. You're very poor at reading a situation.

I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing - I assumed in good faith - the minor edit feature. Advised him of the fact. He responded by blanking his talk page. I checked back later, noticed no change in behavior. Advised him much more strongly that he needed to start using it correctly and that he should not ignore the advice. He blanked it again. Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary, advised O'Dea of that fact and provided - politely - a link to help on how to correctly use the feature. O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with, and leaving a comment with a gibberish edit summary. I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly. O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me.

I blocked O'Dea for disruptive editing, exhibited by his interactions with me. Not because he didn't use an edit summary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment prior to blocking was "Keep taking the piss and see what happens" - he wasn't taking the piss, he was pointing out that a) policy does *not* require good edit summaries, and that b) you were not perfect regarding edit summaries yourself. The block looks to me like it was out of spite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You look wrongly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it was out of spite; sometimes blocks are just bad blocks, and people need to learn from them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the incivility/PA; none of the comments were severe enough to justify any action. I think it's a matter of interpretation whether this is ok: [2], personally I think it's fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no requirement for edit summaries to make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought we stopped even posting stats about edit summary usage on RfA talk pages... Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Before forming an opinion on this matter, readers should examine in the edit history what actually transpired, and not accept Hex's sanitised version of what he would like you to believe. This was inexcusable bullying followed by punishing the user with a block because he tried to stand up for himself. O'Dea is a committed content builder who had a clean block log. He has far more experience in content building than Hex has. As usual on admin boards, little interest is shown in redressing an assault like this on a valuable content builder. The focus is merely on protecting the sanctity of admins, however bad. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hex, let me tell you about best practice: never block for attacks against yourself. (Of course don't block at all for something as un-attacky as this was, but that's another matter.) There's no rule that says you're not allowed to, but it's best not. And when you see a user post something "clearly intended to anger me", then don't oblige them, for goodness sake! Don't get angry and block in anger! You're supposed to be the bigger man in such exchanges. Not just the man with the big gun. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

• Thanks for the comments. For the record, there was no anger involved, as much as drama queens like Epipelagic would like to make out. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Holy cat among the pigeons, Batman! Blocked for repeatedly misusing the minor edit box, something in which virtually no one pays any attention to, by an administrator who was completely, 100% involved? I've seen Hex's name around quite a bit lately and I generally like the guy, but this is a pretty colossal lapse in judgment. I sure hope he has no intention of repeating that kind of mistake again, because it actually does have a bit of a chilling effect on those who don't waste any time worrying about such arbitrary things (like myself). Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Hex by O'Dea

The following are my observations about Hex's comments, above, time-stamped at 23:48, 29 December 2012:

• Hex: "I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing ... the minor edit feature."

Reply by O'Dea: This is a red herring. Hex did not cite it as a factor in blocking my edits. It is not relevant at all to what he did.

• "He responded by blanking his talk page."

It is my talk page. I maintain is as I please. In the past, I used to carefully archive my talk page periodically, but more recently I concluded that it was not worth the effort to me – the amount of talk traffic is normally very low. If I or anyone wants my talk history, it is there in the page history. My present default is to clean my page fairly often, and I will remove the latest conversations on it soon. This is none of Hex's business at all and is not a factor in deciding to block another editor. This is another red herring, and Hex took it upon himself to interpret my neutral page clearing action as an attack upon him, which it was not, as my talk page history shows that I clear it often.

The WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED policies were explained to Hex by another editor just two months ago and he demonstrated in his reply that he understood them, yet here he is again pretending that he has a hard time understanding policies when he complains that I cleared my talk page. Once again, he is guilty of selective narrative and inconsistency.

• "Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary."

This is a feeble attempt to make something out of nothing. Edit summaries are not compulsory, nor is there a threshold quality to be sustained. In short, my edit summaries are no business of Hex's. In any case, anyone with time on his hands who wants to trawl through my edit summary history will find precious little to complain about, and even if such an archaeologist personally despised my edit summaries, there is no binding policy concerning them. There is advice about edit summaries, and I normally summarise my edits and do so fairly meaningfully. My record speaks for itself. Hex threatened me with a block already on only his second visit to my talk page. He likes to increase the pressure rapidly. He said I would be blocked from editing until I could demonstrate that I understood the point he was making. I resisted the temptation to reply to his provocative and bullying talk of blocking with the first thought that struck me which was that, if I was blocked, I would not be able to demonstrate any kind of article editing behaviour at all. But I exercised patience and simply ignored him, and made no reply about the patent absurdity of his logic.

• "O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with".

This is sour grapes because I found an example of Hex failing to match his own misplaced standards. The word "grubbing" is truly an example of the kind of bad faith that Hex implied was not his style when he lectured me sanctimoniously about good faith on my talk page.

• "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly."

This is a self-serving re-interpretation and sanitization of what Hex actually said, which was, "Keep taking the piss and see what happens". That was a direct threat, and one which was expressed in less careful language than Hex is using now that his actions are under scrutiny.

• "O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me."

I invite anyone to read my comment which pointed out Hex's inconsistency and directed him to read the edit summary advice at Wikipedia Help. It is clear from this whole fiasco that he did not understand the official position so my direction to him to read it was germane. I also asked him to cite exactly the transgression he thought I had committed, and I invited him to come back to discuss it. He has chosen to interpret this as "an inflammatory comment" – but that is his problem.

• In his latest comment about me elsewhere, Hex has said, "From my prior interactions with the user, I was unconvinced of their commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community."

Leaving aside the flustered grammar, Hex's talk of "commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community" is truly meaningless and irrelevant gobbledygook from a man finding himself embarrassed and in a corner.

• Hex just blew up because I pointed out his inconsistency in a way he could not wriggle out of, and he further believed, wrongly, that edit summaries are mandatory, and that I was wrong, but he was the one who misunderstood. He also misunderstood how to administer a situation like this one, and misunderstood when, and when not, to block other editors. There are, so far, ten editors who disagree with Hex's actions, on this page and at my talk page. No other editor who has examined the narrative has yet come forward to support Hex's position. I am entitled in the circumstances to repeat my demand that Hex withdraw the lie that I was "taking the piss", as the facts do not support this hostile and self-serving insinuation. — O'Dea (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR. Looks like a nice dramatic reading.

I can spot someone taking the piss from a mile away; it takes far worse than the likes of you to get my gall up. Your mental picture presumably has me howling like a monkey and hurling the keyboard across the room, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I will admit, however, to momentarily raising an eyebrow and putting down my cup of tea. It's possible that I may have even emitted a small sigh. Anyway, feel free to demand whatever you want. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hex, I think the people assuming you did this out of blind rage are simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to imagine anyone fit to be an admin would have made such an awful block without something like the kind of furious, face-reddening anger that makes it hard for one to see straight. Arguing that you were not in a state of rage is not helping you. Arguing that this was the result of careful consideration and the kind of decision you come up with at your best is not helping you. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, O'Dea... please don't expect the courtesy of a reply. Admins do not make errors. You and I are members of the unruly, and we really must be put down or ignored. The mere fact you had the presumption to come to Wikipedia and add content is proof enough that you are uppity. If Hex was one of the unwashed he could be arbitrarily sanctioned (if it amused just one other admin). But he's not, he's in the group that is here to arbitrarily sanction you. More to the point, your thinking on abuse is wrong. You should learn to chant the admin mantra, "the only admin abuse is abuse of admins".

Many admins are keen on using their own particular idea of "civility" as a weapon for smashing content builders. This is a splendid weapon, almost impossible to challenge, and they have been practicing lately on each other. But it is not a weapon a lowly content editor may use against an admin. It's like the samurai's sword; only the samurai may use it. Hex's behaviour and punishing block may seem a gross breach of civility. It is not, as the non-action on this board will shortly prove. Admin behaviour towards a content builder never lacks civility. Hex may discipline you at his whim. As a content builder you may grovel, but not grizzle.

The best content builders have left or are leaving, like rats perhaps, since content builders are treated like vermin here. Wikipedia is spiralling in deadly ways as unskillful administrators destabilise it. Hex's hubris, his clear belief he is entitled to behave the way he does, is a symptom of that. In time, if this trend continues, Wikipedia will degenerate into a comic book Conservapedia for the impoverished, with ingratiatingly polite overlords feasting on hapless content builders that mistakenly stumble into its maw. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Having fun, are we? — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Really? The status quo is not "back in place". A content builder now has an undeserved block log and has been subjected to inappropriate abuse by an admin. Nothing has being done to reasonably redress this. Are you really endorsing this thread, Fluffernutter, as an exemplar of the way admins now handle content builders? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

  I am endorsing nothing here other than the fact that the thread was turning nasty very quickly and that I personally believe it would be wise for all parties to try to cool down rather than keep hammering away. I can't force you to do that, I can only recommend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well... as I predicted. there it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• So: no integrity, no withdrawal, no apology, no guts. Noted. — O'Dea (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Hex about their replies in this thread

Hex, the arrogance of your replies in this thread is terrible, especially the reply to O'Dea above, "TL;DR" and all. (Your block was terrible, too, but I think you've already been told that.) Really, O'Dea responded once, in self-defence after being blocked — unreasonably blocked, if the deafening consensus above is to be believed — and you, the blocking admin, couldn't take the time to read it? The last passage of the essay WP:TL;DR might interest you:

A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity.

I'll charitably assume you didn't mean the "didn't read" literally, but only as the kind of attempt to discredit which the green quote describes, and a way to express your contempt of "the likes of you" and their "demands" (your italics). If your demeanour is a symptom of burnout, Hex, please consider taking a break, and coming back refreshed. If it represents your actual view of admin responsibilities, I'm sorry to see you're not open to recall. Would you consider standing for a new RFA? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

• I'm really quite shocked the way Hex has responded here. The block reason was "Ignoring repeated administrative requests to properly use the edit summary feature, and responding to same by attempting to needle the admin making the requests", which is essentially for (a) failure to obey a policy that doesn't even exist, and (b) daring to point out the admin's error. In my view, this is clearly abuse of admin tools.

  An admin with integrity would be expected to accept their error and apologise, especially after the unequivocal consensus that Hex was wrong, and that is really what I was expecting to see from Hex here. Instead, we see him digging in and entrenching his unjustifiable position, downplaying what he actually said (vis "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly" versus his actual words "Keep taking the piss and see what happens"). And then in response to O'Dea's accurate, justified and clearly presented explanation of what actually happened, we got a condescending and contemptuous "TL;DR" response.

  This is typical of the arrogance of some of the bad old admins who seem to think they have carte blanche to arbitrarily impose their authoritah, and that "ordinary" editors should shut up and not talk back. Judging by this display, Hex is not fit to be an admin, and if we had a more workable route for requesting admin recall, I would be pursuing it. So Hex, as you steadfastly reject what some of your fellow admins here are telling you (and I see none supporting you), I have to join Bishonen in asking if you will stand for a reconfirmation RfA? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While Bish's and BsZ's identification of an issue is spot on if incomplete -- there's also the drama queen PA on Epipelagic -- the correct remedy is not an unlikely-to-be accepted challenge for a reconfirmation Rfa. I'm not aware of prior screwups by Hex, so I think feedback from AN should be sufficient; if not, RFC/U should be the next step. NE Ent 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from AN should be sufficient if the editor is willing to accept it, but Hex clearly is not. And if an editor is not willing to listen to valid criticism, the entirely voluntary RFC/U process is an utter waste of time (though I suspect you are right that a request to consider a confirmation RfA will fail, I think we need to suggest that option). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It is unknown whether Hex will accept the feedback here or not; what matters is not whether Hex posts some sort of admission but what actions they take in the the future. Clearly O'Dea has received the support of the community in validating the block was wrong, which is good. Telling Hex they erred and explaining why we think so is good; berating and badgering beyond that is not. See also Editors have pride; although it was written for a different context the underlying concepts apply. NE Ent 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(Regarding pride, Proverbs 16:18 contains sound words - no religious affiliation on my part implied). Hex has actually rejected the feedback here so far, at least at the time of his last comment. Whether he continues to do so is currently unknown, and as Bish suggested, there are (at least) two viable options - Hex really can either accept the feedback and maybe take a break for a while, or he can continue to argue that he was right. If he chooses the latter option, then further action is required, and a reconfirmation RfA to allow the community to decide would seem like a relatively speedy and honorable way to proceed. Given Hex's apparent contempt for the opinions of others so far, I'd welcome your suggestions for a better way to proceed (given that RFC/U is entirely voluntary and cannot work if the editor in question will not consider its validity). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The most viable and least disruptive option is the thread winds down -- the archive bot always get the the last word -- and Hex doesn't make inappropriate blocks in the future. That said, I don't think a shut the discussion up close tag is appropriate here, lest Hex and or other editors decide they have something to say.. NE Ent 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As in archived = swept under the carpet? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest. If admins are seriously discussing the best way to get a fellow admin desysopped, or eligible for desysopping, there's no need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass. Well, there's never a need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass, but this is an especially inappropriate case. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Goodness, either you are joking or you radically misunderstand what is happening here. Hex will not respond and the matter will simply be dropped. This is not just some random happenstance. This is how it works here, and why the editors who are best at writing the encyclopedia are increasingly being discarded. Bishonen and Boing! are exemplary admins doing the best they can, and we are lucky we still have admins left of their calibre and humanity. But there are about 700 active admins, and it seems that Bishonen and Boing!, in this thread, are the only ones willing to champion the rights of content editors to some dignity. Wikipedia has already sunk into a destructive pit and become a playground for admins with decidedly other agendas. As a result, the usual default action here will happen, which is no action. Admins generally may be as incivil as they choose towards content editors. It's true that two admins were recently (and absurdly) blocked for incivility, but that was because they were incivil towards another admin, not another content editor.

Generally the ultimate act of incivility, the most humiliating and hurtful thing to do to a content editor is to block him or her. Worst is the indefinite block, which specifically aims at making the editor grovel. Right now, a move is underway at WP:BLOCK to rewrite the blocking policy so the block noose can be tightened more around the content editors neck. In this thread, an admin who recently achieved celebrity with his terminal block of Malleus Fatuorum, is charging ahead, calling for multiple blocks and the widespread use of indefinite blocks without warnings:

If I see that someone has been blocked for edit-warring before and I'm thinking about blocking him for edit-warring again, I see no value in warning him again... I'd block a handful of users rather than fully protect a page in nearly all instances... most of the blocks I give in such situations are indefinite.

Wikipedia's content editors are generally too good for the quality of the admin system. Most content editors have their heads down writing the encyclopedia, and do not realize, or want to realize, what is actually happening here. Anyway, this thread will no doubt be closed now on the grounds that matters like these are irrelevant on an administrators board, as indeed they seem to be. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If this thread goes through to the archive with no acknowledgement from this admin that he has behaved badly, I'll take it to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never entertained the idea that administrators can or should be perfect 100% of the time; however, when administrators take action, they must be open to discussion on those actions. Recently, I came across an administrator who misused some tools. The issue was discussed and resolved, the administrator apologized and assured that the event in question would not occur again. I have no problem with that. In this case, Hex has been unwilling to discuss his actions and accept that the block was incorrect. This is wholly inappropriate for an administrator and a personality trait that isn't suited to the extra tools. I would like to see this go to ArbCom. Ryan Vesey 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got a decent amount of street cred for supporting the desysopping of admins who have a history of doing this kind of thing, but I think going to ArbCom right away, if we don't get an "acknowledgement", is premature. For one thing, demanding apologies is a mug's game. For another, I really doubt ArbCom would take the case after just this one incident. A better approach is probably to note that if it happens again, it will go to ArbCom, and point to the two recent cases where this type of thing has resulted in a desysop, once it can be shown to be a pattern. This was clearly a bad block, and a really disappointing reaction to universal criticism of it, but I suggest staying focused on the future, and not trying to back Hex into a corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Others have covered this below but because you are addressing my use of "acknowledgement" I should clarify that I'm not talking about an apology. I'm looking for simple recognition that his behaviour, surrounding the block and the block itself, was unambiguously bad. This is, after all, as far as I can see, the unanimous view of all here. I would certainly like to hear from anyone who thinks it was not bad. Without that acknowledgement, it would be irresponsible to leave him with the bit. We owe it to the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

While an apology would be appreciated, I don't believe in demanding them either; however, I do believe that administrators should be required to discuss any administrative action they take. While this is a volunteer project, I would say there's consensus that taking an administrative action must be accompanied by a willingness to discuss that action otherwise that action should not be taken. Hex failed to respond to O'Dea, responding with a TLDR and saying he could "spot someone taking the piss from a mile away". I understand your point Floq, but this just isn't the type of behavior I want to see from somebody who has the ability to block someone. Luckily, it doesn't appear like Hex uses that tool much. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to do with apologies either, it's about trust going forward. And if Hex still believes that what he did was right, despite all the feedback he's getting, then he does not have our trust as an admin - anyone at RfA today who pointed to Hex's recent action and said it was fine would be roasted. It's fine for someone to have a bad day and make a bad call due to stress or other emotion, but we need to see a positive reaction to feedback - not an entrenched insistence that their actions were calm and justified. But in practical terms, if Hex does not respond positively, there's nothing we can do right now - because there is no de-sysop request mechanism that will deal with a case like this. As you say, Floquenbeam, ArbCom will only deal with cases when there are multiple examples of bad behaviour - I think there needs to be a mechanism that will deal with a single but unrepentant example, but there isn't one. So while I flatly reject Epipelagic's accusations that we (as admins) are trying to sweep it under the rug, the current weak system of redress does make it look that way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did I generally accuse admins, and you for that matter, of trying to "sweep it under the rug"? I said nothing of the sort. In fact I specifically said that you were an exemplary admin doing the best you can. In rely to NE Ent's wish that nothing should be done and his statement that "the archive bot always get the the last word", I queried "As in archived = swept under the carpet?". Elsewhere I said that the default position is to do nothing. The reality is that that is the defacto position. It doesn't just "look that way", it is that way. Do you think that is incorrect? Why are you taking exception? You attacked me before in a similar manner, and I can only assume you are simmering with some anger you have about my views or attitude (real or imagined). If that is the case then I invite you to ask me about it somewhere so we can see if there is any substance to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my misunderstanding. (As for any past interaction between us, I'm afraid I don't remember it, sorry - I have to confess I only vaguely recognise your name) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; for me the issue isn't so much that there was no apology, it's that Hex still seems to believe this block was remotely reasonable. They're probably related, though, since presumably there is no apology because Hex still believes that this block was fine. As boing points out, there isn't much we as admins can do: threaten to indef Hex if this happens again? Hex isn't in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall so that pretty much just leaves us with ArbCom, and anyone can take this to ArbCom. I'm not quite as sure as others seem to be that arbcom won't take the case; the new panel might be a bit more willing to deal with the perennial complaint that desysopping is too hard... HaugenErik (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I was curious about that. Could the new ArbCom declare that they will entertain requests for desysop? They'd accept or decline in the same manner as normal requests, but there would be fewer hoops to be jumped through before taking it to ArbCom because there aren't other desysop venues to take care of it. Ryan Vesey 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, they wouldn't need to make any declarations, would they? They would either accept the case (possibly in response to the complaints about it being too hard to desysop) or they wouldn't (because there aren't "multiple examples of bad behaviour"). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I hesitate to post this, as I think all I'm about to do is needlessly complicate everyone's life, but... Note that this looks very similar to the current situation. For those of you thinking about ArbCom, this is good news (beginnings of a pattern) and bad news (from November 20092008. (oops)). I'd still be surprised if an ArbCom case was accepted, but no longer think it's impossible. At this point, I'd like confirmation from Hex that he won't block anyone except clear vandals and spammers, something he's been doing without apparent incident for many years. To get me to not care anymore, he doesn't need to agree he's in the wrong, just that he doesn't agree with the Community's opinion, and is therefore going to skip that aspect of adminship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, so he's done this kind of thing more than once - and he wouldn't accept being told it was a bad block last time either. I'm still not convinced that ArbCom would act on "once every three years" bad admin actions, but it must increase the chance slightly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I can support that, Floquenbeam. I have very serious concerns about this person's attitude. Unless I see an acknowledgement that his swaggering arrogance and contempt towards O'Dea and his block of O'Dea were unacceptable here, we should relieve him of the bit. As it stands, I can't trust him to deal fairly with borderline spammers and vandals. I don't trust his judgement at all, and it amazes me you're willing to. Can I recommend taking a look at his three RfA's? [3][4][5] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I am just giving my opinion, Anthony, I'm certainly not telling you what to do or what to think, i hope I haven't given that impression. Yes, I just finished looking at the three RFA's (including, in RFA #2, a promise to be open to recall if that RFA passed. but it didn't). Yes, I would have opposed all three. Yes, this incident gives me great pause, and if there was a reconfirmation RFA today with no agreement to stay away from this kind of block, I'd oppose. But there is a lot of good work he's done over the years, including good admin work, and I'm hoping some kind of trajectory other than the SchuminWeb or EncycloPetey cases can be worked out, so that we (Hex, and Wikipedia) don't mutually burn all our bridges. This does appear to be the only area I see problems in; if I could convince myself he won't do that one particular thing anymore, then I would consider his adminhoodness a net positive, and move on to find other more pressing problems more in need of solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a page somewhere that lists the blocks he's made? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Try this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, more elegantly as a wikilink: Special:Log/block/Hex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's prettier (I just looked at my own and then changed the URL) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's this from 23 December 2012. Where Hex blocked Twehringer thesociety (talk · contribs) for an unspecified user name violation, without discussing it first, as the policy recommends. This user name breaches no policy. Username policy says, "

The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below. [...] usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", 'WidgetFan87', 'LoveTrammelArt', etc.

Two inappropriate blocks in ten days. Hex, can you explain the rationale behind this block, and why you didn't discuss it with the editor first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the username block and the 2008 block Flo references above I do think we need to hear from Hex or push this to ArbCom. NE Ent 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to Floquenbeam, who is the only person to have had the common courtesy to alert me by email to the current status of this thread. I happen to be on vacation. My reply will be presented tomorrow. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

N. R. Narayana Murthy topic ban

Moved from WP:ANEW

 – With some minor modifications. --Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: N. R. Narayana Murthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User: Tib42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 09:31, 24 December 2012 (edit summary: "restored (constant disruptive behavior)")
2. 04:34, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529644837 by Rtat (talk)")
3. 06:04, 25 December 2012 (edit summary: "do not change the top para since it was there from the very beginning")
4. 05:42, 26 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 529722850 by Tib42 (talk)")

Comments:
This is not a breach of 3RR but a battle that goes back further than the above diffs. I am involved. The main content dispute is over which awards to list in the article. User:Tib42 wishes to list more awards, and other editors, including Kkm010, wish to list fewer. It goes back a long ways. I've been involved in it (although no longer directly). User:Dennis Brown tried to mediate it. The last person who tried was User:Ryan Vesey. I left a message a couple of days ago on poor Ryan's talk page (it's a thankless job) to see if he has the time and is willing to get back into it; I don't think he's around right now. Meanwhile, Tib42 persists, and Kkm010's knee-jerk reaction is to revert. Kkm010 and a completely different editor seem to have worked out the secondary dispute, but I really don't understand why Kkm010 saw fit to revert twice before doing so.

Honestly, I don't know what the right "solution" is. Kkm010's recent history of reverting other editors is not a constructive one. An article ban for both Kkm010 and Tib42 might be a longer-term solution, but that can't be obtained here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys its been discussed so many times but unfortunately user:Tib42 simply refusing to give up. From Dennis Brown to Bbb2 everybody tried their best to explain the matter to user:Tib42 still he seems to be so adamant that I have to keep an eye on this article. However, If any misconduct has been done by me I apologize for my behavior. As far as my point of view is concern too much "awards and honors" looks odd and disgusting. Great people won thousands of awards but that doesn't mean we have to list every single awards.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, if you look at the talk page for the article you will see that I have explained my rationale for each award/honor. I have presented these arguments twice. I have also posted on Kkm010's page to discuss this on the talk page. I am happy to discuss this with Kkm010 and come to an understanding but he/she refuses to discuss this. Please note, Kkm010 has not articulated why he/she does not agree with the list of reasons provided on the talk page. Instead, he/she consistently undoes my changes and refuses to discuss these changes in any way. It is unclear to me why this person would object to honors from TIME magazine, Fortune, etc. whereas he/she does not uphold the same standard for other articles that Kkm010 actively edits (such as Ratan Tata, Dhirubhai Ambani, etc.). Why are not those awards 'odd and disgusting'? Why is an honor by TIME magazine ranking this individual's contributions with Mahatma Gandhi 'odd and disgusting;? It does not seem like Kkm010 is being objective here. This is unfair. As the records on the talk page will note, I have been constructive and I have tried to work with Bbb23 and Ryan and it only when they did not raise objections to my arguments that I saw fit to commit these changes. I did not do so unilaterally. Kkm010 has misrepresented the truth and the talk page for the article will show it. I did not get deeply involved in this discussion about honors and awards when Dennis looked at it back in June. There was another editor (AnimeshKulkarni) who was making the case for the honors/awards. It is only in the past few months that I have been involved and I have presented the case for every award. I am happy to elucidate further and make my case. ---- Tib42 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• As Bbb23 points out, I mediated a discussion trying to find resolution on this article. From my perspective, I see Tib42 as an SPA that has edited tendentiously but has gotten a little better at communicating. I think Kkm010 has generally tried to communicate, but recently become more combative in dealing with Tib42. I'm not aware of any other issues with Kkm010, I think they are just pushed to edge with Tib42's behavior, something I can actually empathize with after dealing with them for weeks. Of course, that doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. The problem is actually both of them, equally, for very different reasons. I do not think blocks will solve any underlying problem or prevent disruption in the long run, and may actually antagonize the situation. I would support a topic ban for both editors for this single article at WP:AN, and think that is the best solution for all involved, and ask that someone refer (or move) this case to that board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Hi User:Dennis Brown, yes, I am very interested in this article because he is my hero. But so what? My interest in this person got my to wikipedia in the first place. Who is to say that motivation is wrong? In the due course of time I would like to edit articles for the few heroes I have. If you look at the talk page for the article I have articulated for each and every honor/award why I think it makes sense. If kkm010, you, or anybody else disagrees I am happy to discuss this further. But without even a response from any of you to my arguments, how can I be blamed for being tendentious? I would imagine if you responded to my arguments and I am being stubborn about it and not listening to reason only then would you call me tendentious. When pages like Hilary Clinton can list an exhaustive list of awards from very similar sources nobody seems to have an issue. But why in this case? I have come to understand that I must engage collaboratively and discuss these issue. I have tried to do this, as the records shall reflect. But I don't see a response from the other side except an irrational roll back. --- Tib42 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Dennis Brown and Bbb23 you guys are far more experience than me or Tib42. You know that listing awards which are not notable looks odd. Great businessmen like Bill Gates or Steve job's article, editors haven't list awards the way the Murthy article been written. Anyway its upto you what's good for this article. I have already sated my point of view and hope that some justice shall be done to this article. If you guys want both Tib42 and me to block from editing this article you can go ahead, but make sure that the issue get resolved.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose both Tib42 and Kkm010 be topic banned from the article N. R. Narayana Murthy or any article where Mr. Murthy is the subject matter for an indefinite period of time. This is a more effective way to prevent disruption by two editors that have not had problems outside this one article. For the record, I have mediated discussions on the content of this article but have not made substantial edits to the content. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although it's been quite some time, I was more involved in the content dispute before Dennis's mediation attempts. I think Tib42 is sincere but is stubborn and repetitive in their arguments. Even though an award may be rejected as non-noteworthy, Tib42 persists, sometimes with a rehash of their old arguments, and sometimes with slightly new arguments. Once in a while they may even have a valid new argument, but it gets lost in the dizzying shuffle. Essentially, someone less partisan needs to be involved. I have less sympathy for Kkm010, whom I see as passive-aggressive/disruptive. They are inclined to battle but then back off when chided, but that initial tendency to battle is concerning. My recollection is they were difficult to deal with because of this behavior. Regardless, the article will hopefully be better of without either editor, and the resources spent by Dennis, Ryan, and me dealing with the issues are significant.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I was also hoping that this issue could be resolved with a regular and civil discussion at the talk page, but it turned into multiple disruptive revert-chains. I have also less sympathy for Kkm010, who was in my eyes not only aggressive to Tib42 but also recent to Rtat. See User_talk:Kkm010#Narayana_Murthy_2 and related article reverts. I'm not involved in the content dispute. I only requested twice a temporary page protection. SchreyP ^(messages) 00:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I was hoping to see a more lowered solution, but if both Bbb23, Ryan and Dennis were unable to achieve this, I see that a topic ban is the only way to prevent this. Also, I'd add that the ban may not be lifted (or requested to be lifted) in at least six months. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and fairly strongly (long but please read) I suppose quite a bit of the blame lies on me because I keep attempting to start discussion, but it's a topic I'm not entirely interested in and I've been unable to complete discussion on. When I closed the first discussion, there was consensus to include 7 awards found at Talk:N. R. Narayana Murthy#Award list listed under Notable Awards. Unfortunately, Tib42 did not return during that discussion, so no consensus was made towards any of the "possibly notable awards". This means no consensus was made to include them, and while it was determined that consensus should be sought before adding any of the other awards, no consensus was made to exclude them. Tib42 has restored the material without going to the talk page. In two instances, I initiated talk page discussion and Tib42 engaged in discussion in each instance. There is a concern to the effect that Tib42 continues to use inherent notability arguments (i.e. someone important has received this award; therefore, it should be included). Nobody else has engaged in discussion. The difficulty I have had is that Tib42 is attempting to restore 10 awards at once. They have widely different degrees of significance and I have been unable to engage in discussion on all of the awards at the same time (my previous involvement had only been to close the first discussion and my only action on the article was to make the initial edit to make the awards section in line with the closed discussion). Now it is clear that despite the failure of all involved editors to come to a consensus on the talk page (through lack of discussion), there is clearly not consensus to include all of the awards that Tib42 wants to include or we wouldn't be here. But I still disagree with the notion that there is consensus to exclude all of the awards, I would be among the group that things some of them should be included. A better solution would be to bring this issue to a more structured mediation forum (possibly Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution) and/or discuss only one award at a time. Ryan Vesey 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is a lucid summary of the content dispute, but it doesn't really address the conduct issues. I have a few questions. First, what about a voluntary agreement by the two editors not to edit the article while mediation is ongoing at DRN? Second, and probably more important to the editors, what state do we leave the article in while that discussion is occurring? Normally, that shouldn't matter barring policy violations, but we should be clear as to what we're doing. Finally, what if there is no consensus at DRN? My overarching concern here is to prevent further disruption to the article, not necessarily to "resolve" the content issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• The article, or at least the awards section, certainly shouldn't be edited by either of them while the dispute is being resolved. That was in my mind, but I didn't type it out. I believe the article should be left in the state with fewer awards while the dispute is being resolved. If no consensus for anything can be found at DRN, then it would stay in it's current state. At this point, consensus needs to be found to add any material. Ryan Vesey 19:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – No matter who is right about the underlying issue, the continued reverting is disruptive. I support the article ban on both parties. If one or both of them believe that a solution has been found, they can return to WP:AN and ask for the restriction to be lifted. I understand that this ban is only from the article, not the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  That is correct, the least amount of restriction that will do the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but non-indefinite. For Tib42: a SPA is not necessarily something I object to. If someone only cares about one battleship, say, and is incrementally helping it reach FA status, hey, more power to them. But when I compare the article from when Tib started and the present day, the net benefit of this article's "improvement" is outweighed by many orders of magnitude by the black hole sucking in editor hours. Has this situation been a net benefit for the encyclopedia? Let Tib42 focus on other things for a while, then get back to it. I really don't get Kkm010's motives here but through looking at situation it appears, in my opinion, like (s)he has long since passed WP:BOLDness into WP:OWNership and think a break is needed. Not indefinite, just a break for the both of them. Gears are locked, the admins hold the grease, please apply. PhnomPencil (✉) 21:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see evidence that Tib42 is tenacious, but I don't see disruption worthy of a ban. I hope Tib42 will accept Ryan's suggestion to review the awards one at a time, and reach a consensus. My cursory review is that many of these deserve to be in the article, but I'll try to opine one at a time. Unfortunately for those who think there are too many, my initial attempt to review one of them uncovered another one not on the list, which I will add.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hehe, not only opposing but adding another entry. Don't you have a party to go to? :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :). FWIW, I just weighed in with an oppose for one of the awards.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• fine, if you guys want to do this,, go ahead. But don't do it in the name of fairness. I have abided by a consensus decision in the past on a cofounder issue for this article. Once you both decided on the final word, on the cofounder issue I abided by the decision. In this case nobody had presented an argument before for the awards and I presented it on a case by case basis. I also dropped awards that I realized there would be no consensus on. I have provided citations references and arguments for why. In response I still don't understand what you object to content wise. You have still not explained why you object to honors by Time magazine and it's ilk for this person but you have not don't so for peoplemlike Hilary Clinton or bill gates. The precedence that this decision sets is that we must all hold all biographies to the same standard and eliminate any credible list of awards. That is the message you are sending by leaving this article incomplete on this particular issue. Since there is no consensus or let alone a rational discussion, I am being bullied on this issue and I have choice but to accept. --- Tib42 (talk) 17:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment As it is a holiday for much of the English speaking world, leaving this discussion up for an extended period may be appropriate to allow a full discussion. It is a strong step, warranting more than a few comments before acting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored this topic from the archive for further discussion and hopefully a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Tib, you are not being bullied. What's being discussed *right now* is your behavior in repeatedly edit-warring. This isn't a decision about the validity of the awards, and your argument about Clinton & Gates doesn't really apply. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• This post is just to keep this from being archived again. The voting and discussion aren't really gaining much traction. This is the last time I'll do this.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

Could an uninvolved admin look at Talk:Conversion_therapy#WP:ARBPSEUDO? In short there is discussion to see if this article can be considered as part of the Arbcom decision and edits placed under 1rr restriction to limit the edit warring. Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

See also the still open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conversion therapy. Monty₈₄₅ 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't know that was going on. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM

What the heck is going on with this page's backlog? There are discussions from November that haven't been closed yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

October even (one of mine). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No snark being slung at Ryulong for even suggesting something should be done about this? Guess being an admin (or at least not being TenPoundHammer) gets you more leeway when it comes to signposting excessive backlogs. 31.6.19.194 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an admin?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A pertinent observation! Backlogs happen, this is the holidays -- perhaps the ping will help, but in end, it'll all get done eventually. Salvidrim! 09:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Shhh. What 31.6 clearly knows is that the first rule of the drama boards is to never let the truth get in the way of some good snark; applying this rule by alleging that other editors have prioritized snarkiness over constructiveness is just for bonus points. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The backlog at WP:RM has been horrendous for months. On October 24 it was "only" 20, and climbed to over 120, which is where it is now. There just have not been enough users closing them. It likely has been years since it was cleared. We did make it worse for ourselves by encouraging more page moves to use WP:RM instead of just moving the page. Technical moves though - non-controversial ones, gets cleared out every day. We just need someone to step up to the plate and commit to clear out the back log every week, if not every day. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to see if there are some good candidates for NACs, but these require clear and unquestionable consensus, as well as the non-existence of the target page... so hardly a majority, I'd expect. Salvidrim! 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been years, but it is usually quite backed up. Every once in awhile it seems someone goes nuts there and closes them all. There is great rejoicing, and then a week later there is a huge backlog again. RM just doesn't get the attention it needs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's a bit of a drag. I just did three old ones, and it took me more than half an hour, including reading, closing, moving, a notification here and there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention to an RFC/U, please

I want to highlight this RFC/U for admins' attention: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva.

In an attempt at strict compliance with closing instructions, a motion to close was drawn up on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close. The RFC has been open since 30 November 2012 (that's 33 days, as I write). Nothing important remains unconsidered, and the trickle of new contributions simply aligns with opinions that are already well exposed. The motion to close has revealed overwhelming consensus; the delay in implementing this consensus with a formal closure (and an accurately detailed summary of that consensus) perpetuates uncertainty on the Project (notably at WT:MOS).

Would an admin who is experienced in these processes please take care of it? I request an admin, specifically. The consensus is clear, but the details need to considered with care. Several comments mention an approach to ArbCom if the matter is not settled with finality.

Thank you!

Noetica^Tea? 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that RFC/U cannot be closed. You appear to be looking for option 3 under instructions which is a motion to close. However, you miss the general explanation over option 3 at the very top which says "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." Although you have a motion that has consensus, not all of the parties have agreed. So this cannot be closed yet. I might be reading this too strictly, I've only closed a handful of RFC/Us, but that's what I am seeing.--v/r - TP 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)--v/r - TP 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that generally user conduct RFCs are not closed except by the subject user's consent. Generally, user conduct RFCs either fade away and are delisted or are escalated to Arbcom due to the subject user's refusal to consent to consensus. It's also worth noting that while it cannot serve as the sole basis for administrative sanctions, such as a block, a user conduct RFC can be indicative of behavior which could result in an administrator blocking the subject user. MBisanz ^talk 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Apteva doesn't accept that consensus there, or at least abide by the spirit of the ban by stopping the disruption (which he seems to be continuing as we speak), then I'm told that a good next step is to request a community ban here at WP:AN. Is there some suggested process for that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is the option of requesting a topic ban here at WP:AN. Remember? That's what happened with PMAnderson, though that ban was later trumped by more stringent sanctions.

I have reviewed the rather confusing provisions for closure of an RFC/U. Option 3 includes this text (my underlining):

However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it? And why would any radically different new summary be seriously proposed? Yet I see that Hasteur has attempted another, much weaker summary, and has sought to impose it as somehow superseding those already in place. (See Motion to close (5) at the talkpage, which until I refactored for conformity with the established structure purported to be in a special category, somehow standing above the preceding motions.)

Hasteur seems to have unusual views on the closing of these things: different from the guidelines, and different from views expressed above. I have asked Hasteur to give an explanation, here in this section.

Again, if things do not proceed according to the guidelines, it may be necessary for ArbCom to settle the matter. Let's hope it will not come to that.

Noetica^Tea? 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been at [6] Neotarf (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

*COUGH* Noetica, since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first.

1. You have failed to follow the instructions of this page. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. It's a big yellow box.
2. The proper location to request closure of a RfC is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a subsection at the very top of this page.
3. If you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva, you would have seen that the proposed closure I make is weaker only because that's a neutral summary that doesn't impose any next steps. RfC/U is not about making next steps, it's about informing the subject of a significant problem with their editing.
4. You'll see that I've "propose closed" contentious RfC/U's in the same manner before and been thanked for it [7].
5. Finally, your request here is what caused me to come look at the RfC/U again. Finessing the rules is how these lower closes can happen while at the same time leaving tracks for future disruptive behaviors to roll forward on.

I question if you, Noetica, might benefit from a vacation from the area around this RfC/U as you seem to be heavily invested (both mentally and emotionally) in seeking sanctions. Let it go. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Serious, guillotine? blood? I don't hear Noetica suggesting anything like that. He's just frustrated, as I have been for months, that there doesn't seem to be a way to get Apteva to stop the disruption. I thought that after a few months and warnings my request to AN/I would have been enough to get an admin to give him a firm warning with penalty of block for continued disruption, but it was ignored. Now that we've got a huge consensus that he needs to stop and avoid this area where everything he has tried to do has been firmly rejected as disruptive and against consensus, we're still nowhere in terms of a process to get him to stop. Can you help instead of trying to make Noetica the bad guy here? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Could an administrator please close WP:ANI#Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing, which is a request for a topic ban. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Could an admininstrator please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There's been almost no comments there. It's fairly inactive. I would have a hard time summarizing any consensus from the small number of comments and endorsements there. --Jayron32 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it really should be closed as without merit in regards to community opinion as only a couple of the involved in the disputes have commented , so there is not community interest or assessment of the situation and that RFC should not be considered as a reason to allow escalation to Arbitration - It does need to be closed though as its been open long enough as per guidelines , hasn't it? - certified on the 20th of November , open for 6 weeks - and as such I second the request for closure - I am uninvolved imo and willing to close it myself if no admin wants to ? Youreallycan 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 07:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• update - my closure has been reverted by User:RolandR diff - with the edit summary, Reverted to revision 530915559 by RolandR: Undoing closure, since this did not meet any of the criteria in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing. (TW)) - Youreallycan 14:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It should really be something left to an admin to close. Tarc (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • YRC, you said that you were willing to close "if no admin wants to" and yet waited less than half-an-hour before doing so? GiantSnowman 15:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I closed it 24 hours after the un-actioned request here - also tarc - there is no requirement for an admin only close - I was uninvolved in the rfc user and with the user in question - I am not seeing any dispute with the details and rationale of my close? - Youreallycan 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't a requirement but it is one of those things that's usually a pretty good idea. If someone sees an admin closure they're far less likely to slam the undo button, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The closure was clearly invalid. According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, "Certified disputes may be closed under any of the following circumstances: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. From the main page, such RfC/Us are typically "delisted due to inactivity.", The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that rFc/u)."

It is evident that none of these applies: the dispute continues, and further complaints are still being made; there has been no move to another method of dispute resolution; and the parties have not agreed to a closure, certainly not on the RfC/U talk page. In these circumstances, even an admin closure would have been inappropriate, let alone one by a passing non-admin. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin threatening to block an arbitrator?

No more drama. Horologium (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Is this a serious threat or is it just a joke? [8] Mathsci (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) A mage war is a thing to see....However there is no prohibition from this if they are indeed crossing the bounds of policy and warnings have been issued. What's the problem with holding them to the policies like we are, they are above the policies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed it is, but you shouldn't be closing a discussion about yourself. I will leave it hatted regardless as it's hardly an AN matter anyway. Snowolf How can I help? 13:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Unlike Snowolf, I am perfectly happy unhatting it. I find it particularly disruptive that User:Gimmetrow is threatening to block a brand new Arbitrator who received very high approval because of his perceived misuse of the tools and is granting himself single handed authority to execute sanctions against this arbirtrator on an issue he is now involved in. I think we may indeed need to issue a block, but to who I wonder. Disruption or protection of the project. I also find it disturbing that User:Gimmetoo, his alternate account, would close this thread. At the very least, it shows a greying of the WP:INVOLVED line in this administrator's eye. And that I do consider a WP:ANI issue.--v/r - TP 13:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TParis (talk • contribs) I've re-unhatted it, NE, please read the discussion, Gimmetro is User:Gimmetrow and he is an administrator. Snowolf How can I help? 13:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC) A discussion with NW and NW's talk page is not an issue for here. You clearly do not understand what is going on in that discussion. Let NW respond for himself. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Either way, you should not be hatting a discussion concerning yourself. KTC (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Might help us understand if you provided diffs. That's a good place to start. Ohh, and not closing threads about yourself, also a good place to start. Not threatening to block someone you are so involved with and clearly upset about. You might want to take a damage report before firing torpedoes, sir.--v/r - TP 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's right, though that was meant to stop the drama. But given the recent incident where Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for reopening closed threads, I assume those who reopened the thread will be censured for continuing the drama ,right TParis? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) The discussion above 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. More precisely, I was blocked for reverting an edit-warring administrator who failed to discuss his mis-use of the close template here to stop discussion, and preferred to try to intimidate me with huffing and puffing that he would block me. You can see that I was reverted soon afterwords, in another thread, which was reopened by Demiurge1000 without complaint. A double standard, of course. Please notify me when I am discussed here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Kiefer - please notify me when I am being discussed here. I blocked you continuing to to re-open a closed discussion which furthered unverified and serious allegations about an editor. Back on topic: Gimmetoo has a habit of threatening fellow Admins with blocks. GiantSnowman 14:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Nope. I gave reasons, and Giant Snowman failed to respond even once. GS edit warred, threatened, and then mis-used his block button, rather than engaging in discussion. Then GS advertised that he was going for a drink..., a rather strange ending to a rather strange day, even for GS.... Why did GS respond on Gimmetoo's page? Why not answer the thread on GS's page, to allow readers to follow the discussion? Why didn't GS respond to my discussion on the AN/I page? Perhaps he should try to respond now? Better late than never. Let's have a pity party for GS, who feels upset because he was threatened with being blocked after edit warring and blocking an editor rather than responding to his discussion. Life is so unfair. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678

I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There really aren't many admin who have the technical knowledge to express an informed opinion. We generally just wait for things to go wrong.©Geni 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

BAG pages are not really that visible, and so it has been part of the policy since time immemorial that nominations have to be broadly spammed all over the place :D Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Time immemorial = July 3, 2008. MBisanz ^talk 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Usurping accounts with a large number of edits

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Large usurp, regarding the appropriate way to handle a request to usurp an account belonging to a now-banned editor with a large number (5500) of edits. The bureaucrats have asked for additional input. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)