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 88 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 63 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)

Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 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 41 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 37 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 35 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 34 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 21 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 4 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 41 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	5	9
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	27	19	46
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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 56 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 37 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 28 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 285 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 78 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)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 21 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 20 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Attribution for offensive text that was oversighted but screencapped by subject

Normally when an article is vandalized with horrible things about a BLP, it is oversighted and not mentioned again. In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, she took a screen capture of it (http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/06/harassment-and-misogyny-via-wikipedia/), and allowed it to be published in Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/06/anita-sarkeesian-feminist-games/). Since it is technically free and since it illustrates the topic (where the vandalism of Wikipedia itself is a topic of discussion), I've included it in the article (File:Anita Sarkeesian - Wikipedia Harassment.png). The problem is, how do I give attribution to edits that are currently oversighted revision-deleted but featured in that image? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just for accuracy's sake, though it doesn't make much difference to the question at hand: the edits in question were revision deleted, not oversighted. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks. I always conflate the two as they amount to the same thing for a non-admin. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ugh. It appears that a BLP includes a section on how the article was vandalized, with a screenshot showing what a terrific job the vandals did. I can see that a case could made to justify this extreme violation of WP:DENY, but I find it worrying. The fact that the subject has attracted vile abuse may have some encyclopedic value, but I don't see why Wikipedia should cooperate in that endeavor. Perhaps the section should be heavily trimmed (no illustration), with just a mention of what two reliable secondary sources have written? Johnuniq (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, just remember that WP:DENY is an essay: we cannot "violate" it as if it were a project policy or guideline. Nyttend (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say Wired violated DENY when they published the screenshot. WP vandalism made the news in a reliable secondary source, we're reporting on that reporting. If we wanted to cork this and save face we should have done so before it saw re-publication. It's silly to not use the screenshot, as it is free and clearly explains the topic. We can't reasonably say that we're protecting the BLP by editing it, when she published the screenshot herself, continues to host it on her website, and provided it to a magazine for further publication. The edits were rev-deleted, so we can't be seen to be co-operating in the slander, just acting as our own tertiary source. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem to me that any of the responses above deal with the actual question. As I see it, Wired actually broke the law by publishing that image, because it contains text from Wikipedia and they did not comply with Wikipedia's licensing terms (which require a specific kind of attribution). Since the image itself is technically a copyvio, there is no way of attributing it that will make it cease to be a copyvio. However this is a very unusual situation and it seems unlikely that any sort of legal action would be taken. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the case could be made that any image of a Wikipedia page that contains the title of that page is effectively providing the attribution. For example, this is an image of a WP page that is titled Anita Sarkeesian. One could reasonably assume that Wired readers would know that the attribution would be located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. Regardless, this is covered under fair use, as they are discussing the vandalism specifically. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree with Johnny. The "source" line for the image should read something like [insert Wired URL here], modified from a screenshot of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian. The little date addition to the bottom right corner isn't really enough to attract separate copyright in my opinion, and it's not particularly relevant to the situation, so it should stay but could easily be removed should someone challenge it by saying that we're infringing on her copyright. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • She can't claim a copyright violation, all WP text is share-alike, meaning that any derivative work is the same license. She pixelated the image and added the date, but her additions are automatically CC-BY-SA. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Going back to the original question, the usernames (mostly IP addresses) were not hidden in the affected range. Hiding them would be a problem per WP:Revision deletion#Notes on use. The visible usernames – even disconnected from individual edits – satisfy Terms of Use 7. b. iii., "a list of all authors". Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thanks. It didn't even occur to me that deleting edits wouldn't delete the editors' names, or to interpret the license in that way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to share Johnuniq's concern, above. JohnnyMrNinja replaced Sarkeesian's Kickstarter image with the vandalism screenshot, and less than a day later asked for the Kickstarter image, which had sat peacefully in Sarkeesian's biography for the best part of a year, to be deleted under CSD F5. That seems a little over-eager! I've reinserted the Kickstarter image for now; its removal had not been discussed. The screenshot of the vandalised biography is available in List of Wikipedia controversies (now linked from that section of the biography), and given what it is, I'd say that article is a better place for it than the biography of the person who was the target of the abuse. I've started a talk page section at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Kickstarter_Image_vs._vandalism_image. Andreas JN466 02:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If by peaceful you mean a no-consensus deletion discussion and if by over-eager you mean marking the unused fair-use image with an unused fair-use image tag. That non-free image is now listed at FfD as it now has free replacements. That is more of a content issue than an admin one, and none of this is related to the original question, which has been answered. Unless there is any other issue with the image's attribution, perhaps it would be more productive to move further comments to the FfD or talk page and let this section archive. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to move on

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

---

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pjc747 a different kind of case came up. Editor was blocked for VOA a while back, which he claims was a compromised account. Edits before that were fine. Original account was User:Pjc747 and it was blocked 3 December 2010. He started a new account User:Spartan7W the next month in January 2011 and spot checking his edits, I didn't see anything problematic. The only reason he was discovered is he used the old name in his current signature, so he wasn't trying to hide anything, he just wasn't aware of the policy, which is plausible. Technically, it is socking now, meaning he should log in to the old account, request unblock, or wait 6 months for a WP:STANDARDOFFER but he would rather use this established account. Forcing standard process seems overly bureaucratic in this one particular case. A unilateral decision by me seems inappropriate in this circumstance so I'm bringing it here for the community to decide. This is one of those rare cases where I think Wikipedia is better served if we ignore the rules as a community.

I propose we move on, let him edit unrestricted, and build an encyclopedia.

• Support as proposing party. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 02:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - "Rules" or bureaucracy should never be allowed to prevent improvements to the project. He's currently editing constructively, and should be allowed to continue doing so. I am much more convinced of an editor's "rehabilitation" by months of constructive editing than I am by six months of nothing followed by a standard offer. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Of course NE Ent 02:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per proposer. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Accounts sometimes are genuinely compromised, and starting a clean account seems a reasonable solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems like a good idea, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Salvidrim. Peridon (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Dennis Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sensible applicationg of IAR. Blackmane (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I can't say that I'm overly convinced by the account offered at the SPI (this situation seems more like the actions of a youngish editor who got caught vandalising and then made a clean start, but I am pretty cynical), but Pjc747's edits seem of a good quality so there's no reason for such an old block to be enforced. Most VOA blocks are (I suspect) imposed on young people, and so it would be pretty silly to put any weight on them after more than a few months in most circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  I completely understand the skepticism, and share the belief that it is moot anyway. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 12:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Nick-D --SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a reasonable idea, community support, etc. for doing this. I believe there's consensus. However, I have notified blocking admin Dreadstar on his talk page of the situation and discussion and invited him to comment prior to acting. If he objects prior to tomorrow morning I will hold off until discussion converges again. If he does not I intend to unblock and resolve this discussion tomorrow morning ish. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Had the block been more recent or more contentious (or memorable) than a routine VOA, I would have notified at the start. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 01:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The editor would prefer to use the new account, so I don't think the unblock is required, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There'd better be a permanent linkage between the accounts, if that's the case (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and changed the block on the master, noting the linkage, and added a note on that editors talk page, too. Dreadstar isn't around but I'm confident he would have no objection if he were here, so I've just implemented what is an obvious conclusion, including closing the SPI report and notifying User:Spartan7W. Thanks to everyone for having an open mind, I expected as much but it is always good to see it from the community. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ / Join WER 16:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I ended up away for an extra day there. Thumbs up. 128.107.239.233 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
• A little late, but I support this. Good job Dennis!  :) Dreadstar ☥ 03:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses

Relevent discussions before I get into details:

• Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.215.10.7

At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:

• Wickwack
• Ratbone
• Keit
• Floda

None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases

The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.

• Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

My point is that there should not be a presumption of guilt until it can be reasonably assumed that he has at least seen the argument. When he posts on WT:RD (or on W:RD, which will probably cause someone to point him here), we can safely presume he has seen it. If he doesn't post on either, then the topic ban makes no difference anyway. In practice, it makes little difference, I'm just more comfortable with him defending the ban before it comes in than trying to revoke it once it is in force. MChesterMC (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support but conditional on not registering; i.e. he (?) should be allowed to register an account and no longer be bothered by this, but looking at the evidence allowing the continuation of the ip socking outweighs the benefits of their frequently useful answer on the RD.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question/(Non-administrator comment) I'm curious, if this editor is unregistered and has a dynamic enough IP address that it is causing an issue confirming that they have received notification that there is an issue with their style of contributing, how is a topic ban going to help in protecting the community? Short of blocking the wide range of IPs the editor edits from, what is going to stop them? I see such a wide IP range-block as doing more harm than good keeping out multiple other good editors that follow all the rules in an attempt to stop one stick in the mud. Forcing everyone to register goes against what the spirit of Wikipedia is, and I would never support it (as I'm sure most others wouldn't as well). I am simply at a loss for words and ideas that might actually prove useful to prevent this kind of damage. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wickwack signs his posts because he wants people to know that he posted them - despite an every-changing IP. Forcing him to be truly anonymous and to gain no credit for his work would be a genuine punishment that would hurt him. He could pick another name to attach to his IP posts - but as soon as we realize that this is another sock - he'd have to change it and start over with building a good reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last Chance I'd prefer they be given a final chance to pick one identity and register it. If they refuse am not against a ban. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I could accept that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The IP-hopping creates additional difficulty for us in monitoring his activities. He is not compelled to IP-hop, and there is no reason for us to view that as extenuating. If he creates an account and stops pretending to be multiple people then he can ask to have this ban reviewed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You haven't read the thread properly, have you? It's his ISP, the biggest in Australia, that does the changing of the IP addresses. It's not the editor's choice. While I too support sanctions, I get cross with posts that are poorly informed, apparently by choice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It's going to be tough to impose a punishment that will stick - but doing nothing at all just gives permission to any malcontent with a rapidly cycling DHCP address to run riot through our encyclopedia. If Wickwack (et al) is handed a block - then we can at least delete contributions that are identified by that set of monikers on sight. Since these activities seem most common on the Ref Desks - where a small community of editors is easily able to monitor all posts - that's not an unreasonable consequence. I get a sense that Wickwack takes pleasure from being credited with his posts - which is why he signs them - and I doubt that he'll become a totally anonymous IP poster...so a seemingly symbolic punishment might have more teeth than one might at first suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
• Last chance per Medeis, ie unless he commits to an identity and stops socking. His contributions were often good; his chosen format was a pain but within the rules. I fully support the principle of IP editing, but a topic ban doesn't force him to register to edit any area where he has no problematic history. If he's genuine, he'll appreciate why this is required in view of the diffs. If it turns into Whack-a-Wickwack, at least we'll know where we stand. I really hope he registers. - Karenjc 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Like everyone else, I am tired of this editor's antics . Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Partial oppose. I haven't heard compelling evidence, and I know sometimes Wickwack gives good answers. The proposed remedy is that we delete his stuff on sight, but since we might not know for sure who it is that could mean discarding good content by a new volunteer. I would suggest we simply give ourselves broad latitude to remove comments by him we think are abusive, but also the freedom to leave anything that seems helpful. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Last chance as per Medeis. Medeis is showing human feelings for the first time, so, we could do that too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the smoking gun I am copying it from the Ref Desk Talk Page linked to above and archiving it since it's a quote and to make it stand out. Another bold inset format would be fine if someone wants to edit it.

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

---

By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.

If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds

• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 25#Why can't LCDs be made capable of displaying interlaced video?, where 'Keit' disagrees with SteveBaker; they go back and forth for a bit, and in a thread with no other participants to that point, 'Ratbone' suddenly shows up to announce "I agree with Keit..... One suspects that if Steve was actually a researcher in Philips Display and Television Group, then from the misinformed nonsense he wrote, he was probably in cabinet design or something."
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 5#Does drinking water right after a meal makes us fatter? is interesting, as it introduces another pseudonym: Floda. 'Wickwack' offers a response, Alterprise demurs, and then 'Floda' (another Telstra IP) pops in with "It would appear that Wickwack is correct..." before Wickwack returns to further agree with himself.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 6#turning flourescent lights off and on features 'Wickwack', 'Floda', and 'Keit'. They don't appear to be up to no good, but it's just plain weird to run through three aliases just answering a question about fluorescent tubes.
• Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 18#Seismic morse code starts with responses by 'Ratbone' (among others); 'Ratbone' becomes increasingly vexed by disagreement with another IP. After three 'Ratbone' posts, 'Keit' appears to lend support: "Didn't you read anything that Ratbone and SteveBaker wrote? Information theory, as both have outlined, is a well established branch of science...". 'Ratbone' then returns to make another five or so comments in the discussion.

...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

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

μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Just to ping someone reading; this has been open for a few days now, at least 2 have gone by without any further comment. Can we get an uninvolved admin to evaluate the discussion? --Jayron32 03:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Requests for closure decision on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

In a recent decision to not close two discussions on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012, the administrator closing the discussions, User:Nathan_Johnson, stated that "both threads have died down and been archived. If this issue is still in dispute, I would suggest starting a WP:RFC." Which I did go ahead and start an WP:RFC, here.

However, the more I think about it, the more problem I have with this close. The discussions were old but the consensus they demonstrate hasn't changed. Rather the discussions were old or not, they demonstrated a policy based consensus for the inclusion of the background section of that article. I would ask that the non-closure be overturned and both discussions be closed with a consensus that the section does not contain WP:OR or WP:SYN. Just because the discussions were archeived does not mean they do not represent policy based consensus. The two discussions are as follows:

• Talk:Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections,_2012/Archive_1#Background
• Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_25#Rape_and_pregnancy_controversies_in_United_States_elections.2C_2012_Background_Section

I mention it because the arguments were brought up at FAC. I would like some closure on issues that I feel are dealt with. Casprings (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What kind of "closure" (your last sentence) do you want? Is there a current disagreement with the article? What was the issue brought up at FAC? (--RA (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC))

There is current disagreement that I am trying to work out. However, this particular issue shouldn't be. The linked discussions happened months ago. In my opinion, there is a consensus in those discussions. However, when I brought it to WP:FAC, user:Arzel gave very similar remarks concerning the article. He stated that it was a "research paper" at FAC. These are very similar to his comments at WP:ORN. I am not against him stating an opinion that is against consensus. However, to me these two discussions represent consensus on the relevance of the background section to the Article and the fact that it is not WP:OR. I would like the discussions to be evaluated and closed for that reason. If I am wrong and there is no consensus, so be it. I will keep working to arrive at one. However, if there is one, I would like it acknowledged so I can point to it in future FACs.

You opened a dispute resolution request on this issue, yesterday. Is it an on-going issue? Or is it over? --RA (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There are multiple issues ongoing which I am trying resolve. I have RFCs going currently (thus the quick close of that dispute, which I didn't know) I was going to try use that process also to resolve the various dispute. However, the above issue should be at consensus, at least in my opinion.Casprings (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't really see anything to close. User:Arzel expressed an opinion, a few other disagreed. That does not make for a strong consensus in my book and User:Nathan_Johnson close was fine especially as the discussions were archived. The current version of the article does not have a tag on the background section so its not really disputed. This is beging to look like WP:STICK, but if you really want continue it follow Nathans advice and open a new RFC.--Salix (talk): 12:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the two discussions and boldly closed the RFC (the repeated request here for closure of the previous discussion negated the reason for the RFC).

Like Salix alba, I think you should step away from the WP:STICK as well. --RA (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the close. I removed the section and placed it on the talk page because of the close. I will move the sources later. While I disagree with the close (multiple sources do mention it as background information on Akin), I will accept that the consensus I thought was there was not there. Thank you again.Casprings (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Casprings, see the last two sentences of my closing comment:

"I didn't see evidence in discussion that [the background section wasn't done fairly per WP:NPOV using verifiable resources dealing with the topic of the article] in this instance. Maybe the section in this instance is OR, just no evidence was given to demonstrate that it is so."

I added these in an edit to the closing comment. --RA (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the point. Backgroung is fine as long as it is neutral. Thanks and sorry for the confusion.Casprings (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

1) The Tea Party movement case is suspended until the end of June 2013 to allow time for the Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to attempt to resolve the conflict regarding the Tea Party movement article. Pages relating to the Tea Party movement, in any namespace, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions until further notice. The Committee will reconvene on 1 July 2013 to determine if the conflict has been resolved; and if not, what further steps the Committee should take.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this

Issues with relisting (and, occasionally, closing) AfDs

This is to other admins who use the closeafd.js script to help them close and relist AfDs. I've noticed recently that apparently, when relisting a discussion, the 'View log' link on the AfD does not update to link to the log the discussion is relisted to anymore - it remains pointing to the original log that the discussion is no longer in, even after multiple relistings. In addition, on occasion (although not regularly) it fails to remove the AfD template from the article when closing, so please check the article after closing to be sure it did (Anomie's linkclassifier helps with this). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The script still seems to be working fine.[2][3][4] (Note: I am using User:Timotheus Canens/closeAFD.js, which is Mr.Z-man's script with a few tweaks.) The issue you describe usually happens when you try and relist a whole load of AfD discussions in a short time period. The script doesn't have any edit conflict detection, and if it encounters an edit conflict it just doesn't make the edit to the log. This is a pretty common occurrence, as the daily log pages are huge and take a long time to save. The answer is either for admins to wait until one discussion has finished relisting before starting the script on the next one, or for someone to write a batch relist tool that can do a whole load of relists at once. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay in responding, life got hectic. Well, I understand that, but that's not quite the issue I'm referring to. I've experienced the "not removing/adding to the log" thing just like that, and resolved it the same way, but what I'm referring to is the 'View Log' link on the individual AfD discussion page. See for instance this AfD; originally listed May 17, it's been relisted on May 24 and June 1, but 'View Log' still points to May 17th's log. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have just observed this too, and I was not relisting a batch, only a single AfD. I had to update the "Log" link by hand. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hassan Rouhani

An incident. Moved to WP:ANI#Hassan_Rouhani. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Assessment of consensus needed

For whatever reason, an In the News item has not been assessed by any of the ITN regular admins in a couple days time. As such, I am requesting assessment here. The item, Valeant Pharmacuticals, can be found here. No special knowledge of the ITN process is required, just the ability to assess consensus. However, if desired, the general guidelines on ITN can be found at Wikipedia:In the news. Whichever way things are decided, a brief note of explanation would be nice. If needed, posting instructions are available here. Note: the story is not yet stale - at ITN we routinely post stories of this age (about 3 days old) to the middle part of the template. Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with the level of support traditionally needed at ITN to be listed, but there appears to be enough support to add the item especially since this type of news rarely makes the front page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for re-visitation of the topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow

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

---

After some discussion with TheShadowCrow on my talk page, I would like to request a partial lift on his topic ban related to creating BLP and Armenia(n) related articles. Despite an initial BATTLEGROUND start to that discussion, I believe that this user has come to a realization that no-one is "out to get them" or holding any grudges against them. I believe that at this point, something similar to the article creation restriction of User:Doncram by arbitration process, which states: "He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review." I believe that a one month or twenty-five new approved article threshold would be reasonable to demonstrate this user's intention to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive manner and awareness of identifying reliable sources for use on the biographies of living persons that have some verifiability. I think that this would make a reasonable prerequisite for an overall lifting of his topic ban in demonstrating good faith to properly edit existing articles on the topics. Thank you for your time and consideration. Technical 13 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this the second or third request of this nature is a very short span of time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my first request on this users behalf after his second previous request on his own behalf requesting a full revocation of the ban of which he withdrew. This request, I would like to emphasize, is a request for a partial lift to facilitate reviewed new article creations offering him an opportunity To prove his claims of having learnt his lesson. Due to a technological restriction, I am unable to post links to the orginial discussion and previous requests for revocation for his ban, but would be happy to do so in the morning. Thank you again. Technical 13 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not an issue, but I notice the user has already made Armenia related edits to his sandbox: [5], [6]. This would be technically in breach of: "edits related to Armenia or biographies of living persons, both broadly construed". Now I don't think that would merit any sort of sanction, but it might be premature and indicative of continued impatience, along with the multiple appeals, and postings to user talk pages such as User talk:Dennis Brown pushing for support in his appeal: [7],[8] etc.

That said, I'd actually support a relaxation of the topic ban to allow him to work, initially, on a single article at a time in his sandbox - which would need to be reviewed by an editor with good BLP experience before being moved to mainspace. He'd need to find someone willing to do those reviews. If that works out, then the restrictions could be gradually relaxed. If it doesn't, then the original terms are easily reinstated. I don't like the AFC idea at all - AFC reviewers shouldn't be expected to do what could essentially amount to mentoring a topic-banned editor. Begoon ^talk 07:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's a good proposal. Support. NE Ent

That seems to be a reasonable counter-proposal. As a reviewer at AfC, I would be happy to ask around and see if there is anyone that has good BLP experience and see if they would be willing to take this user under their wing and mentor them. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've made requests at Wikipedia talk:Adopt-a-user#Requesting an adopter that is... and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Requesting a reviewer that is... as promised. Technical 13 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite frankly that reduces my support somewhat, because one of the big concerns here is the "pushy" nature of the appeals to date. Did you not notice the multiple uses of the word "premature" in this section? That should have been a hint. Editors worried that this was being pushed too hard and too fast will hardly be reassured to see you attempting to make arrangements for something that only one editor supports, and 2 admins have opposed, in an unfinished discussion. I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't, imo. Begoon ^talk 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how requesting a relaxation on a three month topic ban that was imposed seven weeks ago (one week shy of two months) which is over 50% of his sentence being carried out with a mentoring that would be set to last no less than a month (putting him one week shy of the original three months) is premature. Can someone explain that to me, please, as I really do not understand it. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll try. I tried to explain my comment when I made it. I came back and tried to clarify it a couple of times. It's a perception thing. My little girl knows that quite often the best way to get something from me when she's been forbidden it or abused it is to stop asking for it back every 5 minutes. She knows that constantly asking the same question in different ways is not going to work out for her. So she behaves for a while, smiles sweetly, and gets what she wants more quickly. Sometimes she forgets, and keeps holding onto the stick. That doesn't work out for her, ever. Not a perfect analogy, and sorry if it doesn't help. Begoon ^talk 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Are you kidding me? This was withdrawn as way too premature, not because you offered to have a chat. There cannot be relaxation of the TB this soon, seeing as he wholly misunderstood what the topic ban actually meant. Bringing this up now risks a topic ban against requesting relaxation of their topic ban - bad idea (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per my thinking at the last discussion from a few days ago - too soon. Wait for the full 3 months and then we will re-visit. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to see how editing in a sandbox would be disruptive. I can see the reasoning behind wanting a three month break but the editor may lose interest altogether than then we've lost an editor (we have a shortage of those). NE Ent 12:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) I've seen a lot of editors being pushed away unreasonably recently, and based on my readings of previous incidents that seems to be the way it has always been. This is sad that there are people that want to help and improve Wikipedia as a whole, but may be a little misguided in doing so and for that receive excessive blocks or bans from Wikipedia. Now, I realize that there are a lot of stupid bots and people that intend to do harm, but honestly, I rarely see any of those formally attempting to follow protocol and come to ANI or any other venue to request reconsideration. Most of the bots and those wishing to do harm to the project don't bother, they simply create a new spa or make their atrocious edits anonymously. Now, Wikipedia has many venues to help new editors, Help desk, Teahouse/Questions, Adopt a user program, AFC, and the list goes on, but there seems to be a broken link in getting the people that are having troubles and are here in ANI to these programs and help areas. Instead, there seems to be a let's block them for half a year and maybe they will be more mature and absorb all of our guidelines in the meantime even though they don't have the opportunity to practice any of the things they are suppose to be learning. I see lots of flaws in this, and hope that there can be a way to discuss this out and come up with a better "rehabilitation" program of sorts to get people hooked up with the right resources to help them make better edits on Wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

People are rehabilitated here all the time. Many admins started out by getting in trouble and then learning to fit in. It's a community, it's established, and at the end of the day it's a lot harder to change the monolith than change yourself. You need to be a part of it to effect change from within, and change from outside isn't going to happen, generally. I've been "mentoring" an editor who was indefinitely blocked, and saw no prospect at the time of his ban of ever getting out of the hole he was in. It's taken not weeks, or months, but much longer, and it's ongoing because it still benefits him, and me. Now he's a valuable member of the community, productive, and a lot of other editors respect him. I hardly need to do any "mentoring" with him at all now, but I'm still around for him if he wants to talk. Sometimes he "mentors" me now, on topics he knows better than I do. And I'm nothing - have a look at the mentoring work editors like User:Worm That Turned have done. Simply awesome. Sure, we could do the "mentoring" thing better as a community - but please don't think it doesn't already happen. A lot. Officially and unofficially. It's just not a "10 steps to heaven", tick all the boxes, model citizen in a fortnight program. But if you come up with one, I'm all ears. Begoon ^talk 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize if I failed to make myself clear in the fact that I understand and respect that there are a few people that are rehabilitated with the way things currently work. My point was that if a person takes the time to discuss what they did, or what it was perceived that they did (I'll admit that I don't agree that there were initial violations in all of the cases I've seen on these noticeboards, but that may be my lack of understanding of all of the circumstances or whatnot and I've not the time or interest in dredging up all kinds of old "cases"), and someone feels it worthy to request a modification of the sanctions that are proposed on a user based on the discussion and all previous discussions that indicate others feel that the user is remorseful and truly has good faith intentions, than it isn't unreasonable to allow some modification of the sanctions from "you can't do" to "you can do, but supervised" and I think it benefits Wikipedia more in the long run to encourage participation in any of the programs I listed or implied that are designed to improve the editing skills of the editor and offer some kind of reward (in these cases, lightening, not removal, of the sanctions against them). Technical 13 (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

And as you saw from my support above, and Ent's, you're not alone in believing that we should work in that way. We also need to show respect for the community's time in dealing with these matters though, and, like it or lump it, serial appeals and constant pushiness rubs people up the wrong way. Always. I've used up my self imposed monthly ANI word count just in this discussion, though - so good luck. Begoon ^talk 16:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

As promised last night, the links to the previous discussions are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#Continued editing of BLP articles without reliable sources by User:TheShadowCrow → Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Please remove my ban. → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive249#Ban_appeal

• To be fair, his dabbling in his sandbox was my idea. That shouldn't be held against him. I felt it was a way to allow him to demonstrate the ability to do so properly, while limiting the reach. During his long block some time ago, I showed him how to hat discussions to allow him to work on article drafts on his talk page, so I've been involved for some time and used my best judgement in determining what would not cause disruption, balanced with trying to help him get up to the standards expected by the community. If the community wants to hold me to account, that is fine, but it would be unfair to hold that against him when deciding. On the topic ban as a whole, I'm reserving judgement at this time. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that, so wouldn't have even mentioned it had I known. Mea culpa too. I'm pleased I actually supported a very gradual relaxation for one article at a time in his sandbox in that case... What made me nervous about anything more liberal was the overall appearance of impatience to just get the whole TB scrapped, with posts like [9], while this discussion was happening. Of course, that could also just indicate enthusiasm, but there do seem to have been an awful lot of words wasted on this matter, and that comes into play too. Begoon ^talk 05:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose due to this editor not understanding the reason for the topic ban in the first place. Like the previous two requests, this request is just too soon. BearMan998 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
  • BearMan, I need to ask you, do you feel that your opinion here is completely neutral? I mean just a couple months ago when the topic ban was decided upon your seemed to be flaming this user pretty hard saying that he was personally attacking you. If you have gotten over that and this truly is neutral (which AGF says I must assume that is the case), then I apologize; however, if that is not the case, I would have the utmost respect if you were to withdraw your opposition. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me as to where I was flaming this user pretty hard saying that he was personally attacking me? If this did occur, I honestly don't remember it. That said, if TSC doesn't understand the reason for the topic ban I can't understand why it should be lifted early. There are situations where a user shows remorse, takes complete ownership of his/her actions that led to a ban, and takes time to review and learn policy so that further violations don't occur. In those situations, bans can be relaxed, but I'm just not seeing it here. BearMan998 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Your tone was quite condescending in my opinion, not to mention it shows an obvious assumption of bad faith on your part. Based on your experiences with this user, I'm not sure that I could blame you entirely for assuming bad faith, but I would be cautious as to how much I had to say in discussions relating to a user I could not assume good faith in. I've seen remorse in both of his personal attempts to request the ban be completely lifted as well as remorse and good faith in his discussions with me once we got past him expecting me to scold him on my talk page. I can't see how it would do any harm for him to create a couple new articles to be reviewed before going live to make sure he gets it and can properly source BLPs. In the time since this discussion has started, I've spent some time learning about BLPs myself and would be willing to mentor and adopt this user if it would easy concerns about possible damage or disruption to the project as a whole. Would this be acceptable for him to write drafts in his userspace that myself (or even Dennis or NE ent or any of the previous supporters of a complete lift on his ban) would review before going into article? As was seen in the discussion with Jax 0677 elsewhere on this page (may have been archived by now), if it turns out that I am wrong, and TheShadowCrow really is NOTHERE, I would be the first to bring it back to ANI and recommend a full reinstatement of the topic ban to last no less than six months. I feel pretty confident that this won't be necessary though. Technical 13 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

My support above would be contingent on a "mentor" with good BLP experience over a long period, and demonstrated good judgement in advising in areas like "dropping the stick" and respecting consensus. I think you had recent, similar issues, albeit early in your relatively short "career" so you can probably understand the problems it causes. Do you think that is what would make you suitable for the task? Possibly it does, but I'm interested in your thinking. Begoon ^talk 12:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can not offer a "lot" of experience with BLPs, but I am familiar with them and the need to cite reliable sources. The best I can offer as far as my ability to demonstrate good judgment in advising is my Teahouse answer record and my contributions to WP:VPT the notifications discussions and my interactions on this page itself. I understand your concern about the apparent brevity of my editing record here on Wikipedia itself, although the fairly short duration of that incident itself may offer some insight on my ability to work together with the community and I've intentionally left that incident on my talk page as a way to aid in reducing the hostility of other users that may be having issues by being able to point to it and say hey, I understand what you are saying as I was there not long ago myself. Then I point them to take a peek at User:Technical 13/Feedback and tell them that despite being blocked myself a couple months ago, I've managed to adjust my editing habits appropriately and become much more respected in the community. Like I've said a few times in various discussions on this forum, people learn by doing. That being said, my attempt to help user:Jax_0677 is an example of me being able to drop any sticks and know when an editor I'm trying to help has figured out that the horse is dead and ready to be helped. Like I said above, if it turns out that I am wrong, and TheShadowCrow really is NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, I would be the first to bring it back to ANI and recommend a full reinstatement of the topic ban to last no less than six months, I still feel confident that this won't be necessary though. Technical 13 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible administrative power abuse by Admin:Beeblebrox

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

---

Exactly five minutes after the most recent post on the topic with no requests for close this administrator closed this discussion because the editor in question hasn't commented on the topic. I think this closing is a little premature since we were still discussing it and as far as TheShadowCrow not commenting, this was per my instruction in the discussion on my talk page and shouldn't be held against him. I've opened this a new section below to discuss Beeblebrox's possible abuse of power to close an active discussion based on an unfounded accusation. I think the last two comments between Begoon and I were constructive to the matter and not disruptive. I really hate to assume bad faith on Beeblebrox's part especially since most of my previous interactions with him were fair (even if not always in my favor or I agreed with his POV). So, I'm going to assume it was the MediaWiki software that failed to give him an (edit conflict) warning and he was unaware that I had just responded to Begoon while he was closing the discussion. I request permission to continue the possibility of me mentoring this user and allowing them to create a couple new articles on the topic of their ban in their user space as Admin:Dennis Brown was already apparently allowing them to do without anyone else's knowledge. Technical 13 (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin can close discussions, too, so it really isn't even a consideration for admin abuse. He did make an important note that TheShadowCrow has failed to add even a single comment, which may be why so few have bothered to respond here. It has been entertained for days now, and often 3rd party requests are rejected out of hand. Most processes like this are wrapped up in a day or two, but this has dragged on much longer without much support. Viewed objectively, the whole process has been handled rather leniently. It is fine if you disagree with the close, but it is clearly not abuse. As for the sandbox, as no one has objected to my "exception" which I clearly declared (and it was on my talk page, so it wasn't in secret) so I assume there is no objection for continuing. Mentoring doesn't require permission, and I would encourage that. If I were to take anything from this discussion, it would be "wait at least 90 days". I thought it was too early as well, but refrained from voicing that concern as to give him every chance to persuade the community, yet he never showed up. In this case, I concur with the close, with no prejudice against TheShadowCrow himself requesting for a lifting of the topic ban in the future, preferably in 90 days or so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Technical 13, this looks very WP:POINTy on your behalf. Beeblebrox's actions were 100% right, as Dennis stated; it's time to drop the stick and move on. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you need to read the whole discussion again T13. Beeblebrox's close is good and fair. And really? Abuse? Think about it for a while, and realise that you're letting your disappointment at not being able to steer this the way you wanted colour your judgement. Also think about how much good this does for the user in question. Much less than none, I'd suggest. Begoon ^talk 16:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Again, as I stated in my opening statement for this discussion, please do not hold the fact that I asked him to not participate in this conversation against him.
• @Dennis Brown:, what it looks like you said is that the "exception" to allow him to work in his sandbox is okay. If that is the case, then my request is approved because that was all I was asking for at this time. Perhaps my request wasn't as clear as I had thought it was.
• @Lukeno94:, having a point is NOTPOINTy by default. I'm not disrupting anything on Wikipedia to make my point. I simply pointed out that closing a discussion with a comment that was barely five minutes old that offered details in response to a question I was asked and asked if my details were unreasonable was premature especially since he apparently did not take the time to follow the initial link to the discussion I had with TheShadowCrow or he would have found my plea for the user to not say anything in the conversation unless I asked him to and closing it because there was no feedback from the user.
• @Begoon: My major concern here is the fact that five minutes after I replied to your question, the discussion was closed without any confirmation that you had gotten to read my response or offering you the opportunity to respond. Technical 13 (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Despite Technical13 failing to notify me as required, our fancy new notification system let me know about this thread. So, I've seen it, I've read his concerns, and I have absolutely nothing to add as this complaint is without merit. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggestion of Admin abuse is wholly without any merit - does T13 not recognize the damage that he's doing to TSC with crap like this? The section above needed to close, die a horrible death, and be archived ASAP ... days ago even. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Forgotten password for an account without an e-mail address associated.

The Help:Logging in page suggests posting here for advice. Not sure what kind of information I need to provide or what the process is to reset the password for the account. Advice will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.223.24 (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Try this. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see the part about you having a missing e-mail. If you have forgot your password and you have not specified an e-mail, there isn't much you can do to get your account back. Unless your account posted something such as a SHA-512 which you could then verify, it's probably better if you start over with a new account. Next time, specify an e-mail so you can retain your account when mishaps like this happen. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Request to close RfC at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have?

The Request for Comment (RfC) at Talk:Air France Flight 447#RfC - What "Summary" should the Accident have? has been open for three weeks, and discussion appears to have calmed down. I'm asking for an uninvolved administrator to summarize the discussion and close the RfC. Perhaps it may be hard for the closing administrator to find consensus for a specific phrasing, but they can say, for example, that "the stall should be mentioned" or "pilot error should not be mentioned". Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 08:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of opening a Request for Closure at WP:ANRFC. This will transclude the request to the top of the AN page making it more visible rather than buried in the morass of AN. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:AN/RFC: Not done. Consensus unclear. Wait until the full month has passed. And adding here: There's really no point in requesting closure of an RfC before the full month has passed. If consensus is clear, then there's no need for formal closure. If consensus isn't clear, it shouldn't be closed early. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RFPP unprotect requests

User:Webclient101 added 26 requests to the unprotect section of WP:RFPP. I looked at a few of them, and they are all related. In 2011, User:Dabomb87 semi-protected the articles indefinitely because the pending changes trial was over. Webclient101 wants to reenable pending changes. Dabomb87 hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of last year, so they can't be consulted.

My recommendation is we unprotect the pages without pending changes. Indefinite anything needs to be justified, and it's not clear to me why these articles have been semi-protected for two years, or why we should continue it, even with a lower level of protection. Obviously, if editing becomes disruptive on any article, it can be taken back to RFPP and an admin can evaluate whether protection is warranted.

If there's agreement with my recommendation, I will go through all of them, insure they fall within the same pattern, and unprotect them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of prudence, I would say change SPP to PC1 for the BLPs, and unprotect the others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Salvidrim here. As this would in line with the request, it wouldn't be contentious to do so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Template:2c Some of these were semi'd before the trial for BLP violations. In my opinion, those should remain as-is. As for the rest, they should probably be unprotected. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101^talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [10] [11] WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but both accounts were autoconfirmed through the vandalism. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

PC for high-traffic pages rarely works out well. We cannot know if they would be frequently edited by non-(auto)confirmed editors due to the two years of SPP. If, once unprotected, vandalism becomes too much to reasonably handle with reverts, it is never too late to apply protection again; at least, then, we'll know for sure that it is absolutely needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

While I tend to prefer, as Dennis, the idea of some level of PC for BLPs, I'm not sure that some of the BLPs wouldn't be best unprotected. As one example Michael Hastings (journalist)'s moment in controversy has probably passed us by, he very well might do fine unprotected. In the general case, the PC mechanism we have now functions more poorly if too many articles are put onto it, and/or if high-volume articles are put onto it. Obviously Michael isn't a problem there either way, but I think there's some argument for being selective about the use of PC. For the non-BLPs, I'd unprotect most of them, but each should still be assessed individually, there's some odd history to Wheely Willy, for example. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note above that the lack of recent vandalism lately doesn't show that protection isn't needed, only that protection has worked, since they have been protected. I think it is clear from reading above that each article will likely have to be decided on its own merits, and likely a blanket level for all of them won't be optimal. I am still of the idea that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but that doesn't mean they all must be protected as a rule, as the consensus doesn't support that, yet. I would say just use your best judgement for each individually. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

For history, the articles were indefinitely semi-protected because of an Arbcom overstep. When the PC1 trial was over, I was actually blocked and taken to Arbcom for exercising judgement in the removal of PC1. The mandate from Arbcom was to replaced all PC1 protections with semi-protection of equal length. The result is that many articles wound up with indefinite semi-protection when no protection at all was actually justified.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Any level of "protection" is a deviation from the intended design, done only because of abuse. When people don't know what the status of an article should be, the default choice should always be to make it fully accessible, then watch what happens. It should further be stressed that Pending Changes has become a mechanism whereby articles are less accessible to edits than semi-protected articles, thanks to a long-planned and ostensibly unintended "feature" that editors with accounts can still have their contributions held up behind an IP. Many people are not going to put up with this and just not do anything to the article, and since articles still usually improve, that is worse for the "LP" than if we allow open editing. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Support unprotection per Bbb23's original post and Wnt. NE Ent 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Wnt focuses too much on the "anyone can edit" part and misses the part that matters, the fact that we are an encyclopedia. We have a duty and missikon to get things right. If we focused on the "anyone can edit" issue, we wouldn't have any type of protection, pending changes, or blocks/bans. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If there has been no recent problems and no solid reason to believe there are Huns at the gates, I'd say unprotect. Pretty much per Kww and our actual policies on such things WP:PROTECT. And SirFozzie, your statement is what scares a lot of us about pending changes. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Injections of gender specific terms in multiple articles

I have just noticed two editors (possible related) injecting gender specifics into article against any recommendations I have read in WP. Could somebody please investigate Tradesman and Handyman and it looks as if they have created some disambiguation pages concerning the same gender nonsense theme. Editor/s involved User:108.17.82.201 and User:Omnipaedista. Many discussions on these article alk pages have resulted in not to do this complication of articles.

Apologies if this is not the correct page. I did not know where to go. Involved have not been notified. Thank you. 99.236.135.28 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No gender bias here, of course. I was merely objecting to the violation of WP:INTEGRITY [12]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies! It would appear that you have been involved in correcting the gender specific edits, as I intended to do but cannot seem to do mass reversions as an IP (I guess?) and I have made a huge mistake. It appears you have been looking after the panic I perceived from the edits done by IP108. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. 99.236.135.28 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Azerbaijani people

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

---

Hi, britannica Encyclopedia Say: [13]/ Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran. BUT Verdia25 Say Turkic-speaking people. and Not accept Azerbaijani people is Turkic people--'''SAMƏK''' (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss that at Talk:Azerbaijani people where Verdia25 has now opened a thread. Unless there is disruptive editing or edit warring going on, it's nothing that needs the attention of our administrators. We don't control the content of our articles. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Entries in Category:Possible AfC copy-and-paste moves

• This category is for suspected cut-and-paste moves. But the majority of the entries that I have seen in this category so far, are requests to history-merge page X to page Y, where page X has only one edit and that edit is a redirect. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposed

I would like to propose an interaction ban between User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on the one hand, and User:GiantSnowman and User:Demiurge1000 on the other hand.

Things like this have been proposed recently in a non-binding manner, e.g. here and here, following a long history of problematic interactions (often involving other users as well, but these three seem to be the more constant factors in this). Earlier problems have lead to blocks (e.g. my block of Kiefer Wolfowitz on 6 May 2013, explained here and discussed over the next few days).

Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2, with another rather uncivil discussion between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Giant Snowman, and with Demiurge discussing Kiefer at User talk:Lukeno94, which lead to a rather problematic reply by Kiefer Wolfowitz.

Without going into who is to blame, who is right or wrong, or how this all started (it goes back at least two years, probably longer, but I don't want to start discussing old history again; examples can be found in e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring), I think it is time we put an end to this, preferably without further blocks or too much drama.

Therefor, I propose an interaction ban between Demiurge and Giant Snowman on the one hand, and Kiefer Wolfowitz on the other hand; no discussing one another, no linking to statements made by the other, no replying to each other, no nominations of each others articles for deletion, no participation in a GA or FA discussion where the other is one of the main contributors of the article, ... The only allowable interactions would be normal forms of dispute resolution about each other (one may start an RfC or ArbCom case about the other; they shouldn't start discussing in a third-party process though). They would still be allowed to all !vote in discussions like RfA, but without replying to each other or referencing each other's !vote. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Woah woah woah, Kiefer and I have a difference of opinion (which is pretty much all it is, as far as I am concerned at least) at a RFA talk page and suddenly there's call for an interaction ban between us? Jesus. Let me go further - while Kiefer and I may have had a few disagreements at various noticeboards over the past few months, I for one do not feel the need for an interaction ban. It seems to be making a mountain our of a molehill, finding an issue where there isn't one. We edit in completely different topic areas and our paths rarely cross; when they do, sometimes we disagree and sometimes we don't. I think/hope Kiefer is of a similar opinion. Sometimes things get heated, sometimes they get a bit uncivil, but we both have thick enough skin not to let it bother us. GiantSnowman 13:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

When this was suggested by Fetchcomms c. my RfC/U, I accepted the proposal, and I remain agreeable to an interaction ban including GiantSnowman, who was baiting me on my talk page recently. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer, please can you provide diffs to comments of mine that you feel have been 'baiting'? GiantSnowman 13:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)GiantSnowman, this is hardly the first such "difference of opinion" you two have. E.g. from early May, a link I gave above as well; [14], move up a few sections to "personal attacks". And it goes back a long way, I also already gave Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring. Perhaps you don't need an interaction ban, I may be wrong with the whole proposal or by including you, but acting as if this is only about one recent discussion is not really the most convincing way to make your case. Fram (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel the need to make a case in my defence; and as far as I am aware Kiefer has not requested this interaction ban either. Why have you taken it upon yourself to police our relationship? GiantSnowman 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is an overreaction. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  14:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Then how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation, going back for years, which has lead to blocks, bad blood, and recurring disruption? We can give more and/or longer blocks, but is that really the best way to treat these editors and to improve Wikipedia? Having this interaction ban won't suddenly solve all problems, but isn't it worth a shot? Fram (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • What problematic situation? How has Kiefer and I's interaction been "going back for years"? Where is the "recurring disruption"? As far as I recall the first interaction we had, positive or negative, was when Kiefer actually supported my RFA back in February 2012! Nothing until the ANI in October 2012 (8 months ago, we both acted poorly) and then a disagreement at his talk page in May, and a further run-in on the talk page of a RFA earlier this week. Using talk pages to discuss matters? My word, indef us both! GiantSnowman 14:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The situation has been going back for years. Your involvement with it seems to be more recent and may have been less frequent than it at first appeared (and may have been colored in my meomory by other things like this February 2013 comment by Kiefer Wolfowitz[15]). If others agree with you that I have unfairly included you in this interaction ban, I'll remove you from it and restrict the discussion to a interaction ban between Demiurge and Kiefer Wolfowitz only. But I'll wait for more input first, these kind of things are rather complicated and it is hard to get a correct view of the whole image sometimes. Fram (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Fram, you say "the situation has been going back for years" yet you have not provided any evidence. Note that I am talking exclusively about the proposed IBAN between myself and Kiefer. Do I feel I have been unfairly included? Absolutely. As WormTT says, other users have had more run-ins with Kiefer than I have - yourself included Fram! GiantSnowman 14:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to come here by Fram as my talkpage was mentioned. I can't really give a vote due to the fact that I get on quite well with GiantSnowman, and find Kiefer infuriating, although Demiurge and Kiefer possibly should have an interaction ban, as that pairing is, to my mind, more problematic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I oppose a formal interaction ban between GiantSnowman and Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I don't see the bad blood, or a long running dispute which would require an interaction ban. Indeed, I believe I have had more unpleasant interactions with KW than GiantSnowman has, so unless we fancy handing them out very liberally I think it's a poor idea. Regarding the other interaction ban, Demiurge1000 and Kiefer.Wolfowitz - I support it in principle, but I don't think it is the solution. The long term bad blood has spread off-wiki, to a certain forum and to IRC. The only way it will work is if both parties genuinely agree to the interaction ban and take it to heart - quitting all discussion of the other. I do not expect this to happen on either side, making the entire sanction redundant. Furthermore, I'm not keen on the formation of the interaction ban - I'd prefer a more simple text. Worm^TT(talk) 14:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

So far, only WTT has raised a concern about an interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself, and he supports a ban. Is there consensus for a standard interaction ban between Demiurge1000 and myself? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Patience! The discussion should stay open for at least 24 hours and have some more participants (e.g. giving Demiurge a chance to respond may be a good idea). Fram (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind! I do understand the annoyance you may feel here; you block one disputant having previously blocked the other, another admin unblocks them without discussing it with you, that disputant then repeats the problematic behaviour, the other disputant then comes to your talk page moaning about it, and so on and so on. Having said that, though, if you do choose to get involved in "policing" particular people (as GS puts it), you shouldn't be too put out when the people being policed keep turning up at your police station's front desk questioning one thing or another. And, more to the point, if Dennis had not overturned your 6th May block without discussing it with you, then the disruption at the RfA would not have happened, nor would KW's comments aimed at The Rambling Man and Luke, nor would my informing Luke of the existence of the earlier RfC/U, nor would KW's questionable comments after that. So, you ask, "how do you propose we defuse or avoid a problematic situation", the answer is that you had it right the first time, and you were over-ruled! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we established below that the issue was GiantSnowman's choice of words and he has admitted as much, not KW's participation. Even if someone didn't like his !vote, it should have just been overlooked. To assign all the drama of the last few days with my unblocking of KW some time back stretched credulity to the breaking point. I forgot to add, I do believe that I unblocked you once after Fram blocked you, but you didn't complain about an early unblock there.  ;-) Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The block was set to run until a couple of days from now, I think. If you had not overturned it, the comment would not have been made, and, more to the point, the following problematic behaviour would not have happened either. We're here because you overturned the block in the belief that the behaviour would not repeat; you were wrong. You may feel the !vote should have been overlooked, but others don't agree; it's not at all unreasonable for other editors to reply to a comment that belittles the efforts of an editor just because of their choice of topic area. (This sort of attitude was mentioned right back in 2011 at the RFC/U - KW agreed to try to fix it - has he?) Yes, GS did not make that reply in the right manner, and has apologised for it; but he was certainly not the only one to share that concern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [16] [17]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?).

Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had anything to do with me - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise.

I also Oppose the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 has a history or recruiting inexperienced young men or boys to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games. Consider his involvement with Worm That Turned, gwickwire, and now Lukeno94, or his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia, e.g. on Wikipedia's IRC. Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, is this some kind of accusation of grooming Wikipedia editors? "his involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia".... This needs serious intervention now, as KW's wild accusations have crossed the line. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a horrendous accusation and needs to be oversighted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's worse than horrendous, KW should be blocked for accusations of this nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000 did egg on those editors, didn't he? How did it work out for them? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I read it that KW is saying that User:Demiurge1000 is taking advantage of the editors inexperience to recruit them into some conflict with others. There is no sexual implication in the comment. John lilburne (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• What the actual fuck did I just read? Apart from the sheer idiocy of Kiefer assuming that I am in any way affiliated with Demiurge (I am not, and never have been), and the fact I've used the IRC here about 3 times, all when the servers are down, that has to be one of the most disgraceful accusations I've ever seen, regardless of any sexual nature (or lack of) in the comment. Kiefer should be blocked, and blocked for a while, for that comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Quite. Anyone that empathises with KW's grooming comments needs close inspection. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I will note here that Luke has never attempted to contact me in any way ; and my only contact with Luke has been my one post currently visible on his talk page, the purpose of which I describe in detail above. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I'm also going to note that Lilburne is here after KW canvassed multiple times at an off-wiki forum (including, now, complaining about being indefinitely blocked there), where KW did indeed use the g word, and where he also had some more-than-unpleasant comments to make about Luke. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh sweetheart, this page has been on my watchlist for a long long time. I just don't normally comment here unless something really dumb happens. And the only one that has used the word grooming here is The Rambling Man. John lilburne (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Spirited, emphatic exchanges don't violate any policy. NE Ent 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

GS and KW

• Does anybody think that GiantSnowman's behavior at this RfA meets the standard of an administrator? Or satisfies the civility and NPA expectations of all editors? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kiefer, please provide diffs from the RFA of my failings as an Administrator (impossible, I didn't use any tools), as well as examples of my incivility and personal attacks? GiantSnowman 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to say, without having a horse in this particular race, that the notion of an Administrator not using tools and therefore not having failed as an Administrator is a non-sequitur. Any Admin involved in any dispute uses judgement, the entire basis on which they were selected as an Admin. Just because tools are left at the door in a dispute does not mean that Admins cannot fail in using judgement and that, in any situation - tools or not - is unacceptable. Leaky Caldron 14:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It is refreshing to read your responses. Perhaps a word with another administrator with hyperactive behavior at this RfA might be in order? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• User:Stfg seems to have issue, per his comment at the RfA and I agree. The comment "Pure snobbery" was unnecessarily combative. Once it was explained that Giantsnowman was mistaken in how he interpreted the "Andy Capp" comment, instead of leaving well enough alone, his excuse was "As for AGF, I'm afraid it only goes so far with KW." I think Giantsnowman has lost his objectivity here. I'm normally against interaction bans in general, and have never supported one with an admin involved, but an air gap is likely the best solution. As for using the tools, it doesn't matter here. WP:NOTPERFECT states "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. " It seems you have some animosity towards KW and I think it is clouding your judgement here. I'm not saying it is actionable, but GSM's actions were far from exemplary. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• When you put it that way, I admit that some of my comments at the RFA talk page were not my finest and for that I apologise to all involved, especially Kiefer. I should not have described his attitude as "snobbery" and I should have tried harder to AGF. I would like to assure you that I do not have any animosity towards Kiefer; regardless of the outcome of this discussion (and I hope no formal IBAN is implemented, as I do not see the need for one) I will work on what has been raised. GiantSnowman 15:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is a good thing. What you and I must remember is that when we push the limits on civility, most editors are afraid to speak out because of our "admin power". No matter how unimpressive it might be to you and I, others are intimidated by it to different degrees and many are unwilling to speak out. This is why you and I are both held to the higher standard and have to go the extra mile to insure we stay neutral, else we make bystanders feel powerless and unable to speak out. You have to reach back and remember how you felt well as a new user, before getting the bit. Of course, we are human, and we screw up like anyone else, and forgiveness should come just as easily for these kinds of things. Even without the interaction ban, I would still recommend keeping that air gap between the two of you, let time heal some wounds. Even if you don't feel them, I'm pretty sure KW does. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• My attempt to bury the hatchet with Kiefer was immediately reverted. Make of that what you will. GiantSnowman 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• This is why I think the air gap is needed. From my experience, KW is not one who wants to discuss or engage after an "event", so it isn't about you personally, it would be the same (and has been) in any disagreement. My experience with KW started at my RfA and has been checkered at times, but my experience has been that you just need to step away, as his wounds tend to heal on their own timetable. You and I are probably the opposite of KW in this respect, and would rather quickly bury the hatchet, but we are not universal in this. I recommend overlooking it and moving on. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Dennis,

  How quickly do adults change personality or behavior? How credible is GS's sudden change, after months of complaints (from me and others)? His "wasn't my best" still falls short of accepting responsibility for his behavior. I have known too many nurses and social workers to engage in enabling behavior.

  I recently was pleased to accept an apology from another editor, whom I had previously criticized for "copping out"---i.e., that is, falling short of taking responsibility, on 2 occasions. That editor wrote his apology fully, quickly, and on his own volition. Nobody needed to push him to make a minimum apology, and he wrote a very generous and gracious note, indeed. Let him be an example to us all. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt, but wouldn't read too much into the reversion. It is KW, after all.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Watch Carlito's Way and consider whether Benny was a hero. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sound advice from you both. As stated at the very beginning, interaction between Kiefer and myself is actually minimal as we edit in completely different areas, so letting "time heal all wounds" should not be a problem. Up and Atom! GiantSnowman 15:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Dennis has done a fine job of representing my POV, and I thank him for it. As almost always, I agree with everything he has written in this section. I don't know enough about the background to comment on whether an IBAN is a good idea, except to point out that IBANs don't work very well. They are too easy to game -- actually, they are an invitation to gaming. The current RfA and its talk page are grotesque, and this is a big problem, because when RfAs turn into slugfests like that, it disenfranchises the nice people by chasing them away. People shouldn't have to jump into a fire to have their say on who gets mops. From his comments above, I'm sure GiantSnowman understands this and won't rise to the bait again at RfA (I don't care what happens on their own talk pages). Does Kiefer understand the problem, and does he plan to change anything to help solve it? If not, I think the only way for it to get solved is for the community to impose a solution, unfortunately. --Stfg (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Have you made any other predictions, that would let us evaluate the worth of your surety? We would like to be able to pretend that it was better than your accuracy in recognizing baiting....

  Again, talk is cheap. GS has not struck through any of the inappropriate remarks at RfA, which he claims and you endorse to be now beneath him. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  I didn't understand a word of that, but never mind. --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

KW blocked

Lots of good blocks that can be used to make cool things.

I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. How many times do we have to play his game before we and/or he figures it out. Go Phightins! 21:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Idiotic. But not surprising. Intothatdarkness 21:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Comment I'm referring to the block. Don't want anyone confused. Intothatdarkness 21:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Kiefer's repeated ridicule of younger people has grown tiresome. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block to me and that should be over-sighted immediately as it looks to be an attempt to out the other user based on unverifiable opinion or some such ridiculousness. Technical 13 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:OS is this covered under? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The one that is suppose to protect people's sexual preference. The comment and it's edit summary imply that the user it is directed at is a pedophile or at very least homosexual. I honestly do not care if that user is homosexual or not, but declaring that the user is would fall under 1.Removal of non-public personal information, 2. Removal of potentially libelous information, and 5. Removal of vandalism I would suspect... Wouldn't you agree? Technical 13 (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Why are you talking about sexual preferences and pedophiles? John lilburne (talk) 22:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I seem to have read the comment strangely and missed the paedo angle. I agree this should be removed from public view --Guerillero | My Talk 22:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Too many people have been way too tolerant of this type of incivility from this user. It's disruptive and discourages a collaborative environment. I propose at least a three month block, which will give KW a chance to reflect on how he might contribute here without stirring up drama and attacking other editors. - MrX 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• KW didn't open this thread up. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• How is that relevant? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think it's appropriate to categorize someone dragged to AN as "stirring up drama." NE Ent 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• You had to know that I was not merely referring to today's drama. - MrX 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure how it counts as outing. Whilst admittedly it is easily mis-read in the way @The Rambling Man: describes, reading it more carefully I can plausibly believe that Kiefer meant absolutely nothing of the sort, and was simply commenting on the "political" methods allegedly used by Demiurge. Whilst undeniably a personal attack (especially the last bit) it is not block-worthy certainly not indef-block-worthy.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Not commenting on the rest of this, but you're saying that personal attacks are no longer block-worthy? --Rschen7754 21:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • There's never been a consensus that they were -- see failed proposal Wikipedia:Incivility blocks NE Ent 21:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Please see WP:NPA - especially the first paragraph. --Rschen7754 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
        • I'll call your WP:NPA and raise you an arbcom finding. NE Ent 22:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
          • That's a red herring - there is a distinction between "blockworthy" and whether the editor actually gets blocked for it. --Rschen7754 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I meant "indef-block-worthy".--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Fair enough - I'm not exactly sure where I fall on this one. --Rschen7754 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you mean, "'political' method"? What "political method" is being described there? Is there a political method that deals with "recruiting inexperienced young men or boys" and " involvement with youngsters off-Wikipedia" and "behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men" ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • The "political method" could come from the rest of the bit you quoted, which reads "to serve as his footsoldiers in his manipulative games." Intothatdarkness 21:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
      • What do those games have to do with "boys and young men"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I can't see the comment because that's restricted to admins only and I cannot be trusted with such awesome power but it seems like the comment has been taken out of context. I do think the indefinate block is definately not appropriate. This was not a good reason to indef an established user. I also think this little support no support is not necessary. Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If it's been oversighted then admins (lotsapeople) can't see it; only oversighters (lots less people) can. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It was revdeled, but has been restored. I can see it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block. That was extremely out of line. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

What was out of line? John lilburne (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

KW's comment. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. Which comment? John lilburne (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The one he was blocked for. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to be taken for a fool stop acting like one. John lilburne (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How am I acting like a fool? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  21:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

John, it's the first link in this section. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I know that, and people are reading far more into it than what was actually said, are they not? John lilburne (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you interpret "Is he behaving appropriately towards these boys and young men?" AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd read it in its context and interpret the above to be asking whether it is appropriate for a seasoned editor to recruit young and inexperienced editors to participate in a drama war against one's opponents. Now the question is whether D is doing that or not. I don't participate on IRC or the other hangouts so don't have an opinion. Though I do have the impression that when young editors appear on the drama boards with fully fledged opinions about editor X or Y. that D is somewhere near at hand. But that is only an impression, I may be wrong. John lilburne (talk) 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Overreaction to statement by politically correct Americans reading sexual innuendo into a statement. NE Ent 21:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Take out the Americans, please. I understood what he meant. Intothatdarkness 21:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Color me American but I can't see how that was an appropriate statement. I like KW - he's the last man standing on readable RfA opposes - but this is not acceptable. If cultural differences are behind all this, then an explanation is in order before an unblock. --regentspark (comment) 21:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Colour me British. Colour me 'not impressed by KW'. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Color me unimpressed by the majority of this. Blocking was likely inevitable in any case. Doesn't mean it smells any better. Intothatdarkness 22:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block - I understood what he meant as well, he meant to wp:game the system and wp:bait any who would fall prey to his malfeasance.--My76Strat (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block. Ironholds (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good Block. The only goal in that comment was to be as inflammatory as possible. Resolute 22:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• I think the use of "young men and boys" rather than the more obvious "young editors" makes it clear that KW's edit was intended to be read as an allegation of something other than interference. I support a block, but I'd make it 24 hours. Prodego ^talk 22:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • But he came off a block that lasted for 2 weeks just last month... --Rschen7754 22:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
    • If the block is not just for this particular edit, but rather a pattern of incivility, then longer or indef may be justified. I'm not familiar enough to make that judgement, I was just basing my response on the justification given at the top of this section ("for this edit"). Prodego ^talk 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Very good block. The specific wordings he used has VERY negative connotations, and as such, I would not support an unblock until they apologize for the comment, and publicly undertake a commitment NOT to stray down these bounds again. SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• comment; it's very early days, here, but given the overwhelming consensus I'd strongly suggest nobody unblock unless they want to get thwapped. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block, largely per SirFozzie. I find myself agreeing with him on occasion, but I've been dismayed at his aggressive nature lately, and this can't continue, one way or another. --Rschen7754 22:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that your second sentence is discussing KW and not SirFozzie, but you might want to clarify just to be safe. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• That is correct. --Rschen7754 22:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good block If this were the sole disruptive incident in his career I'd have said this was over the top, and have favored a more limited block, but given the long history of stirring up trouble for trouble's sake, this seems like the right move. Also, the egregious nature of these comments, carefully crafted to be provocative to the point of offensiveness, and yet deliberately containing enough circumlocution to give him some wiggle-room of deniability shows that he knew exactly the kind of effect he was going for in his comments, and that sort of deliberate manipulation isn't something we need at a place where our primary goal should be the building of knowledge. Any contributions lost from Keifer will be more than made up by other people who now won't be driven away from the project by behavior such as this. --Jayron32 22:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep the block and forward to the OS team. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block - the blocked for statements appear to be deliberately cruel. Note also, the personal attack apparently was not aimed only at one editor but other named editors, partly on account of alleged personal characteristics (age and gender). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Exceedingly bad block, as per NE Ent. Colour me British, but I'm also exceedingly unimpressed by the behaviour and attitudes of Ironholds. Eric Corbett 22:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Good block - I've seen a lot of nasty personal attacks here on WP, but not at all subtely insinuating that a fellow editor is a child molester takes the cake. Far, far beyond the pale, and totally inexcusable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Sound block. Deliberately inflammatory choice of language, of a sort usually used to describe extremely grave misconduct. Not explicitly calling someone a criminal or moral degenerate doesn't give one a free pass to use terminology so often (and almost exclusively) found in that context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• If the use of gender-specific language was not intended to imply any gender-specific immorality, then its use was stupid as well as being uncivil and a personal attack. At this point, my interpretation is that the blocked editor is trying to game the system by claiming that a gender-specific insult was not meant to be gender-specific. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• He was being a bit of a meanie and should apologize for any untoward implications, but can we please stop with all this "good block" silliness?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Given that the point of this thread is at least partly to get consensus on the block, how is it silliness for those who agree with the block to say so? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Because the block was silly? Surely nobody in their right mind believes the "an indefinite block isn't infinite" bollocks? Indefinite blocks are used as cudgels to force apologies and repentance for perceived sins, and as such are to be abhored. Eric Corbett 23:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  Well it is not going to work because I am not apologizing for a thing.--My76Strat (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good Block -- This user is extremely abusive and the edit in question is without question insulting. Looking over his edit history, he is skilled at talking his way out of blocks, which is rather unfortunate. Please keep him blocked, for the betterment of the project.Lettik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• It took someone else implying the sexual angle to get even my internet-polluted brain to read the comment in that fashion. Seems an overreaction to me. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from blocking admin: One thing really needs to be addressed, because more than a few people don't seem to get why I dropped the hammer on KW. This whole kerfuffle (the most recent one, not the festering carbuncle which contributes to this whole sordid affair) was started by KW's comments on a specific editor's writing ability at that editor's RFA. Make no mistake--KW is an exceptional writer. In fact, he is far too good a writer for his specific choices of words in the edit for which I blocked him to be mere happenstance. He deliberately chose phraseology and verbiage which would imply that the specific editors whom he named in the post were involved in something more unsavory than simple votestacking. He chose the most inflammatory phrases possible, and worked them into his post in a way which (barely) provided some sort of cover. Were he a less proficient writer, one whose editing history was not littered with incidents of personalizing arguments in a nasty fashion, I might have decided to issue a warning or a limited-duration block. But when the last block issued (for similar incivility) was for a duration of 1 month, and it stood for 18 days before being lifted (with a promise that he wouldn't do it again [18]), I felt that a block was needed, and decided that the community was better suited to determining the duration than a single admin. As I noted above, I didn't intend this to be a permanent block, only one whose length was not yet defined. My personal opinion is that anything more than 2 months is too long, but if the consensus is that he should be unblocked immediately or that he should remain blocked permanently, I will not object. I don't think that either choice is the optimum decision, but of course, YMMV. Horologium (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  That seems very reasonable and fair to me... I tend to agree that long blocks don't necessarily work well. Based on your comments alone, I would say that 6 weeks would be fair. It is a little more than the 2.5 weeks his block actually lasted out of a 4.5 week block. Technical 13 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Given that in theory blocks aren't meant to be punitive, I just don't get this block-length argument at all. Why six weeks rather than four or five? What harm was being prevented anyway? Eric Corbett 01:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Blocks may not be punitive, but they can be corrective. They also protect the project from disruption and, in this case, may prevent other editors from leaving the project because they tire of being insulted, mocked, berated, ridiculed and accused of all manner of ill deeds. His last unblock was a failure of process, in my opinion. He talked his way out of the block using the same types of arguments that are advised against, full of equivocation and blame. We have a principle of escalating block lengths for good reasons. If someone can't get some clue after 10 blocks in a year and a half, then I doubt that shorter blocks will have an enduring positive effect for the project. - MrX 02:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  How can blocks be "corrective" if they're not also punitive? I take it that you're familiar with basic learning theory? I recently became acquainted with a parrot whose behaviour had been "corrected" by having the metal floor of the cage he lived in being electrocuted every time he bit. Is that what's going on here? Eric Corbett 02:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  First, thanks for letting me know how startled you are. Second, please see Operant conditioning. Correction does not only result from punishment. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Please don't try taking the piss. Unlike you I have a degree in psychology. Eric Corbett 03:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  And just remind me, what harm has KW caused to the project? One might even argue that disrupting RfA is of some benefit to the project, in that it might make some dinosaurs rethink their position on that ridiculous and dishonest process. Eric Corbett 02:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  All the time that is wasted on these notice boards and talk pages dealing with bad behavior would be better spent collaborating to improve articles, tools, bots, help pages, and helping new users. Do you really think that treating our fellow editors like shit is helpful to the project? How many editors simply walk away from the project in disgust because of an insulting edit summary? I don't think that disrupting RfAs make them better. I think open discussion, compelling arguments and seeking common ground are a good start though. - MrX 03:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  How much of any of that stuff do you do? Eric Corbett 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  What KW's behavior does is to drive away editors who would rather not be called paedophiles for disagreeing with him. As I noted above, the world is filled with people who will replace his potential future contributions, but won't be abuse fellow editors in the manner he has done here. --Jayron32 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

  Which only goes to demonstrate that you're a malevolent idiot. Eric Corbett 04:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Core problems addressed?

Guys, are you sure these proposed interaction bans and recent blocks are addressing the core problem, or just the symptoms? Are there any behavioral problems by the three parties involved that need to be addressed besides imposing interaction bans? Is there any merit to the allegations being leveled by the parties against each other? Don't know? Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Because that would involve a little bit of work? Eric Corbett 22:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I have some real reservations on this. Admittedly I don't have time to research it all, but looking at the link provided by the blocking admin. ... could someone PLEASE tell me how "sex" was introduced into this topic? I'm not seeing it in the link provided by the block log. As much as I'm all in favor of "political correctness" .. I think some folks are really reaching on this. Could ya'all go back and revisit what was typed and rethink this please? — Ched :  ?  02:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that there is a zero tolerance policy when you put sex, men, and boys into a sentence. If that had happened Kiefer would already be banned and locked. So obviously there's no solid allegation that it did. The first person to mention "sex" at all was John lilburne, a supporter of Kiefer, when he said "There is no sexual implication in the comment" at 20:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC). That my have started a diversion, but it started there! My comment after an edit conflict was it was gaming and baiting, and it was. I hope that helps with your question.--My76Strat (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Page move assistance

I need help moving Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977) to Andy Gray (footballer, born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1964), Andy Gray (footballer, born 1973) and Andy Gray (footballer, born 1977) and fix Andrew Gray accordingly per Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Birth_date_format_conformity_.28second_round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Redirect

Hello, Is it possible to make the following wikipedia page redirect from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president . Bloomsburg is an accredited university and it's more relevant to link to the external presidents about page as it's more up to date + relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow82x (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• No. Wikipedia pages can't redirect to external sources. If Mr Soltz is indeed notable and passes our notability policies for his own Wikipedia page then that link could be included in the article, however. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Black Kite mentions two different reasons, not one, that we can't do this. Our participants generally agree on the qualifications for getting an article. At the same time, even if 100% of participants agreed with your proposal, it wouldn't happen because the software will throw a fit and be unable to understand it. We could create a page whose contents were just the link (but again, please don't do this, because we've decided that such pages can be removed quickly and without discussion), but it's not possible to set up URL redirection from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_L._Soltz to http://www.bloomu.edu/president. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban of User:TheShadowCrow request and Beeblebrox premature closure request.

Begoon, there was no need for vulgarity despite the fact that it was reverted for being against the rules of posting to a closed discussion. Anyways... All I wanted to say here is thank you to everyone that participated in the discussion. I found your input in someways enlightening. I'll be honest, I don't get sarcasm very well, and I don't understand asking the asking of questions that you don't want an answer to. I'm pretty sure there was a pillar I read somewhere that said it is always best to try and be as clear and concise as possible while remaining civil. I've made a note and apology on Beeblbrox's user page, as I really was not trying to attack him and I actually had an edit page open to send him the AN-notice template but everything happened so fast and I'm dealing with a baby trying to pull her playcenter over on herself (she's in her high chair eating lunch right now) that I didn't get a chance to submit and turned it into an apology instead. Anyways, thank you all again. TheShadowCrow and I will be back at some point to request a full ban lift, and it will be within a reasonable amount of time. I will likely be back in here much sooner with my (Non-administrator comment) and Template:Cue on other matters, and I hope that you will AGF and at least consider my future comments with neutrality. Happy editing all! Technical 13 (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your well-intentioned, but poorly-executed thread above shows that you do not yet understand enough about Wikipedia's core policies and processes to make too many nao's and cue's for awhile yet. You're best to watch and learn for awhile before opening threads or commenting. This very thread alone shows you don't get it yet! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a few good admins

It's that ole pain in the ass Beeblebrox with his giant policy RFCs again, looking for some volunteers to get on board to administrate and eventually close Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC, which has just opened. Potential benefits include harassment, trolling, and the near certainty that no matter how you close it you will be accused of some sort of wrongdoing. Sounds great, right?

Actually I'm not sure this one will be so bad, its bound to be a cakewalk compared to the pending changes rfcs. I need somewhere between two and four admins or other experienced users to keep things under control and determine where consensus has led us when it is all over. I'd like to get that locked in now while we are still pretty early in the process, it's only been open for about a half an hour. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to be a part of the conclusion of this RfC if you're not opposed to me wanting to help. Technical 13 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am not an admin, but I do consider myself part of the "experienced users" group. I also have absolutely no predisposition towards any outcome, as the ref desk isn't an area I've ever spent any time at. I have experience doing difficult closes over at Wikidata (or at least, as difficult as they get over there), and I'd be willing to be a closer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help close but not moderate. I have experience doing this - I was one of the three closers of the Muhammad images RfC and am assigned to close the Jerusalem RfC. I don't have any strong opinions about the refdesk or any other COI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• So far the only proposal getting significant support is "status quo", so this might not actually be all that difficult to close :-). Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If I don't participate, I'll help out. Can't be as bad as the last one I closed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)