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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 120 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)

I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

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

(Initiated 45 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	5	25	0	30
TfD	0	1	11	0	12
MfD	0	1	7	0	8
FfD	0	1	0	0	1
RfD	0	0	90	0	90
AfD	0	0	2	0	2

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Category:Prejudice and discrimination in fiction

(Initiated 31 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 20#Category:1982 Japanese television episodes

(Initiated 26 days ago on 4 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 30#Category:1501 establishments in Venezuela

(Initiated 32 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22#National shores of the United States

(Initiated 8 days ago on 22 September 2024) There are a bunch of these on this day's log; I'll only list the one but help closing 'em all would be appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 148 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 126 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 124 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:WHENCLOSE: no new comments for two months indicate that participants have already assessed that there is no consensus and moved on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 114 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 93 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 85 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:Petah_Tikva#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 August 2024) - This has been open and the discussion is at a standstill. While the proposer requested to keep it open, I don't think that it's proper. Another can be opened at another time, but at this point, if someone wouldn't mind closing it, I think that would be helpful to move on. Andre🚐 01:59, 30 September 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 50 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:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024

(Initiated 49 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 45 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 36 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

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

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

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 September 2024). Discussion has died down and last vote comment was a week ago. Raladic (talk) 22:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024

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

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

Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022#Merge proposal

(Initiated 16 days ago on 15 September 2024) – Closed by involved editor under unclear consensus, reopened by a likely sockpuppet account. Discussion has died down and I want an uninvolved closer to get this over and done with. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Using Help me, blocked users and proxy editing

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

---

A keen editor is blocked for a month. They make unblock requests, rejected twice. They also continue to use their talk (about 40 edits in two weeks) to solicit other editors to make edits at their suggestion. These edits are numerous and wide-ranging, it's not just "tidying up an old issue", "avoiding going rudely silent in mid discussion" or somesuch. They have now taken to using the {{help me}} template to actively solicit other editors to do their bidding.

Is this reasonable behaviour for an editor sitting out a month's block?

No names (I'll post that tonight) as the editor concerned is well-known and their name itself could polarise opinions. An objective comment on this behaviour would be useful first. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As I suggested to someone else recently, this kind of discussion should be held to relate to the talkpage and blocking policies (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this no names thing because you can't be bothered to notify them? Lazy bugger.
Anyway, I do seem to remember when I was up to those sorts of antics I got about as far as the fourth template if I was lucky before the talk page was salted. I recommend blocking their talk page access immediately.--Launchballer 10:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I am also unsettled by the use of talk page stalkers (and others via use of a template once stalkers dry up) to de facto circumvent a block. It's time for this to stop, enforcement by removal of talk page access if necessary. Blocked means blocked. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not notified them because I don't want overspill from there arriving here to bias comment on this general principle. Also I "haven't mentioned them at WP:AN" yet. I haven't commented on their talk: (their last comment there was a doozy of self-deluding cluelessness), so that it's not obvious from my own history to whom I refer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone explain how requesting productive edits is bad for the encyclopedia? Last time I checked, you're trying to put in place a rule that's designed to prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia; such a rule has always been against policy. Of course, if the edits they're requesting are not productive, that's a completely different situation, but your description makes it sound as if you wouldn't object to the editor making these changes before the time when the block was imposed. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note that we are incredibly uneven in enforcing the limitation on proxy editing. I'm happy to enforce whatever the community thinks is proper in regards to proxy editing, but policy seems vague and each case seems to be handled ad hoc. This is less than fair and less than optimal. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 13:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

If they're a "productive editor", then why did they get blocked in the first place? We also have a policy against sockpuppeting, I wouldn't like to see that suspended because "it was only being used for productive edits" either. Editors with 1 month blocks are a mixed lot: not 24 hrs, nor indef as incorrigible. Clearly a 1 month means that they have some positive contribution, yet also some serious incompatibility with activity here. I've made proxy edits for other editors myself - even long-banned sockers, where I've (per policy) seen this as an objectively good edit I'm happy to put my own name to. Yet this situation is instead turning into far too much of a route for continuing to edit in new areas, even during a block. As already noted, it's the person that's blocked, not the account. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I know who you are referring too and I'm also not entirely happy with this. Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them. That said, at least this arrangement avoids the problems that led to the block in the first place. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  The logic of that approach completely escapes me, assuming of course that our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. Eric Corbett 13:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Our purpose isn't though to create an encyclopedia single-handed. We also have to co-exist with other editors. Some editors are incapable of this and their own contributions become dwarfed by the disruption they cause to other, equally productive and equally valued, editors – hence the block. Production should be respected (I don't believe it is adequately), but it shouldn't become a get-out-of-jail-free card. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Forcing a problematic editor to make a request for every edit is not a get-out-of-jail-free card; it's quite the hassle for the editor involved. Just remember that people get blocked for reasons unrelated to their content changes; they can be productive content editors and yet cause interpersonal problems bad enough to be blocked. This is a good way of ensuring that all edits are productive, because edits that aren't helpful are a good reason to shut down talk page access immediately. If we start following Spartaz' ideas, we're putting bureaucracy ahead of creating an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  What idea is that? I thought my comment indicated a certain lack of clarity around my thinking. I have taken no steps to prevent Apteva from posting their edit requests. Andy asked for thoughts about whether this is legit. I think I'm allowed to express a qualified opinion without becoming the focus of today's 2 minute hate. Clearly nuance is dead. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

  Responding to "Blocked should mean blocked, not blocked from doing your own edits but you can ask someone else to do them." Nyttend (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Apteva (talk · contribs), notified. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• It's proxying, plain and simple. Remove Apteva's talk page access, and warn any editor that proxied for him that they will be blocked if they proxy again.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What part of WP:Block#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors " unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. " will they be blocked under?

If this was such a clear-cut issue, it wouldn't have been raised at WP:AN, but at WP:ANI requesting immediate withdrawal of talk page access. This is a grey area – there is no policy against GF editors following such a request (see my last comment there!), but is the requester abusing their leeway? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" is the relevant clause. Would any of the editors responding have edited the article without the prompting from the blocked user?—Kww(talk) 19:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Prompting and reason are not the same thing. If an editor is made aware of a useful potential edit at a blocked user's deliberate prompting, then they may then have reason to wish to make just that edit – even though they would never have had such reason without the blocked editor's prompt. This can be an entirely GF action and there is no reason to avoid them acting upon it, certainly not to block them, or even to threaten to block them, for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A distinction without a difference. Under your interpretation, the "independendent reason" clause would have no impact at all.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors. I recall you threatening to block me for adding sources to a contested article, because you claimed that a contested statement now had to meet your personal OR definition, and that you would block editors who added anything that didn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Asking for a source that supports the characterization of the content as "unusual" for a list with the word "unusual" in the title is not the result of any idiosyncratic definition of WP:OR.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to consider the concept of synonyms, rather than demanding a text string match. Even Google is smarter than that. We work by consensus, if a source is raised it's entirely reasonable to debate it on the article talk and either accept or reject it, with discussion, with understanding. Instead you prefer admins as omnipotent arbiters, with the power of blocks to back up questions of content. That is not how we work here.

In today's case, you're re-writing a policy that states quite specifically that editors can make proxy edits (in some reasonable circumstances), and you're threatening to block them on sight. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You might like to read what I actually said, Andy. Notice that I didn't use a synonym of synonym, I actually said "synonym".—Kww(talk) 22:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoosh. That one went clear over your head. 8-( Why do you think I not only quoted synonym, I even linked it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"You are anyway far too ready to threaten blocking of other editors." He is indeed. Eric Corbett 21:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Apteva's response

There is likely nothing that I could add that any other intelligent editor could not add. Blocks are never punitive, and solely preventative. My block is inappropriate because it is solely punitive and is not one iota preventative. Contributions are welcome from everyone, regardless of their status, and however they are received. This includes from a sockmaster that has been blocked a thousand times as well as from someone who never registers an account. We learn about some edits that need to be made from reading about them in the Daily Post, and some from someone making the edit. All that matters is that this is a world class encyclopedia, and we accomplish that through the five pillars, which is why the welcome notice with a link to them is displayed always on my talk page. There is much that I would be able to contribute but that I can not both because of being blocked but also because of being under silly sanctions which will be appealed soon. Apteva (talk) 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple things:

• If you believe your block is entirely inappropriate and punitive then you should post an unblock request or email WP:BASC.
• You are flat out wrong about edits from sockmasters being welcome. Some people are not in fact welcome to edit here at all, even by proxy.
• You may think the sanctions you are subject to are silly, but the community imposed them on you, as I recall, after becoming completely exasperated by your behavior. If you expect an appeal to be successful you might want to try owning your own mistakes instead of blaming others.

Good luck with all that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

(posted before the comment above)

Remind me to notify Arb that some of our admins are unaware of our purpose here. What "and they have independent reasons for making such edits" means, plain and simple, is if a blocked editor sees that Wikipedia misspells the word "book" somewhere, say, as "bork", a quick consultation of a dictionary reveals that the word is misspelled. That is what independent reason means, not that you have to independently ''discover'' the error. No further action is needed, and the thread can be closed. Apteva (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Geez, can we cut off the source of all the damn drama, take away Apteva's talk page access, which he has been blatantly abusing, close this discussion, and forget about this guy for a while? If he wants to be unblocked, he can take it to BASC, but there's no reason we have to keep putting up with his disruptiveness. He's managed to be tendentious even while blocked!! Someone shut the freaking door, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

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

Template:WikiProject United States needs updates done

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

---

There is a massive list of updates that need to be implemented for Template:WikiProject United States. All the changes are done in the templates sandbox, they just need to be implemented. These changes have been building for a month and I have twice removed an edit protected request template from this template after it went unanswered for a week. There are quite a few more edits that need to be done to this template still. Its bullshit that I have to even ask for these to be implemented. I should be able to do it myself and get credit for the work I perform. If some admin can find the 11 seconds time it takes in their busy lives to implement these changes it would be greatly appreciated by an editor who is wondering more and more why I even bother editing anymore. Its so hard just to contribute I really don't know what the hell I'm still doing here since its clear my time isn't appreciated. Kumioko (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are not getting a response from the {{Edit protected}} template, the simple solution is to flag down any admin on his or her talk page and ask for the edit to be performed. Orlady (talk · contribs) has implemented the changes you requested. --auburnpilot talk 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, I didn't see the request on this page before making the edit. I saw your template-talk-page request while scrolling through a couple of days' worth of watchlist activity. As I noted on the talk page, the complicated way that you presented the request was a deterrent to making the edit. The edit itself was simple, but it took me a lot more than 11 seconds to figure out what you wanted to have done (and verify that I was interpreting the request correctly). In the future, I suggest that you package your request as a simple statement of what you need an admin to do (and please omit the editorial comments about "bullshit", etc.). That's likely to get much faster action. --Orlady (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change but the easy and best way would be if I could make the edit myself. Someone with 400, 000 edits and over 6 years on the site shouldn't have to ask for someone else to implement their work. The reason I phrased it the way I did was so the admin would be able to verify the changes were correct and that is how it has been asked to be done in the past. Ironically, it took over 30 days for the changes to get done, less than 3 hours after the bullshit comment so it would seem that comment actually helped. I shouldn't even do the change at all, I should leave it to the admins to do the work rather than take the credit but it won't get done at all if I do that. So you'll excuse me if I have a bad attitude that I am required to do the work that admins refuse to do or don't have the technical ability to do, while the admins take the credit for that work and then am told I can't be trusted because I don't do any admin related work, because I never get credit for the admin work I do. Its extremely frustrating, insulting and stupid. Kumioko (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Kumioko, if you want people to react positively to you, you might want to consider being a paragon of good behavior regardless of any past history. Hasteur (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

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

UAA Overflow

WP:UAA has many bot reported and user reported issues that need resolving one way or annother. If a Admin could see their way into mopping the reports up, that'd be great. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review

I noticed today that Wikipedia:Move review has very few watchers. Could we get a few more people be it admins or not watching this page. I dont care if anyone joins the current debate(s) - just thinking that a page like this could (should) get some more editors looking over it. Wikipedia:Move review - watchers 55 - 6 are new. I have been here many many years and had never seen the page before - I believe this may be the same reality for many people.Moxy (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am now watching the page. Might I suggest that you contact the editor of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and ask if they are interested in featuring the move review process? That is just the sort of thing they like to cover. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Need advice/help dealing with an IP

184.20.209.241 (talk · contribs) has been bugging me and several other editors regarding the My Little Pony tv + comic series, specifically begging "these must be for children, so they can't be dark stories", or "if this is going to be dark, they can't be for kids, and should be marked as adult stories." I don't know whether the user is trolling , a poor English speaker, a child, or the like, but this is all the user has done and is starting to get to a point of bothersome. I do note that this user has apparently been aggravating people on an MLP wikia and is trying to bring that "fight" here. His actions certainly aren't disruptive, but they are annoying.

I don't know what action can be taken here, since by good faith I would think the user is just confused, but this has been going on far too long. --MASEM (t) 03:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like normal trolling to me. My Little Pony is a common target for trolls as its fans tend to be young and easily riled. If they seriously have issues with the show's plot (or whatever) they'd stop watching or write in to the people who actually make the show, not bug random wiki editors. I see they had a final warning already last month so if they're still at it it's block time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

With a splash of AGF, I'd expect that the IP is someone very young who is mixing up Wiki for WikiA. On a lot of Wikias forum like discussions are pretty common and generally allowed. Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Kafziel has blocked the IP. Blackmane (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

[Referring to the struck part:] Not possible. One of their edit summaries specifically references some kind of feud with another editor on MLP Wikia (who is, in their words, "crazy and dumb"). It's pretty clear that they're trolling the MLP Wikia too, presumably with the same or similar material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong belief that the editor is trolling. As I commented on their page, their claims seem to be inconsistent and they keep going back and forth. Furthermore, at one stage they kept adding nonsense to the article claiming the comic series featured extreme violence, gore, sex etc. Perhaps they could have really been so confused once, but after it was pointed out to them it did not have this, they appeared to briefly accepted this before adding the claim again. Nil Einne (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

E-Cat topic ban

I wish to appeal the topic ban shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Parallel#Topic_ban_from_cold_fusion_and_low-energy_nuclear_reactions

What I object to is Andrea Rossi being declared guilty before being found innocent. I have no interest in advocating Leonardo Corporation products. I will be eighty later this year so even if the E-Cat works it is unlikely to do me much good. I objected to the editors refusing to correct referenced errors and the piece as it stands has factual errors as well as those of Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality. Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud. This is unfortunate as I read up to 7000 people seek guidance from Wikipedia on this topic per day.

It has been suggested I don’t understand what argumentum ad hominem means. I do. AndyTheGrump denies it, but he still has not answered the various points I brought up, in particular the referenced errors about Rossi still believing nickel and hydrogen combined to form copper(1), the cherry picked quotation from the stale dated PopSci article, written before the third party tests, and possibly libelous defamation of his character, suggesting he is a criminal and a conman. Instead he goes after the messenger saying that I am clueless, a sock puppet, have threatened others (which I haven’t), that I should “go away and learn about how science works,” asking I have some connection to Rossi or the testers (I don’t) and accusing me of using the talk page as a soapbox.

My major complaint is that the article is not neutral. Give mainstream views prominence, but at least give something from the other side. Don’t cherry pick the most negative bits from the articles quoted as was done for Featherstone’s piece, giving an erroneous view.(2) This is not even the current article from PopSci that is much more favorable.(3) AndyTheGrump gives much weight to LENR being fringe science, but I believe it to be emerging from this category when Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center says LENR is proven beyond reasonable doubt, as does Nobel Laureate Brian Josephson and others.

There have been two independent tests of the E-Cat funded by the reputable Swedish Elforsk R&D organization equivalent to our EPRI(4,5,6) It might have been better to call them engineering tests in order to avoid the misunderstanding by some editors, who felt it should have been a scientific test to determine the physics of the reaction. The test was never designed to do that and was conducted properly as an engineering test, as I know from firsthand experience with scanning IR instruments. These tests showed the E-Cat worked with a high degree of confidence. Secondary reports by Engineering News(7) Forbes(8) A further continuous six month test to start this Summer has been funded by Elforsk.

AndyTheGrump made much of me posting a long excerpt from Engineering News. To start with, I have permission from Kenneth Creamer, CEO of Engineering News to do this and secondly, like the piece I wrote myself, these were trial balloons floated in an effort to reach a compromise through discussion. I had no intention of showing Leonardo Corp’s address in the final piece, this was an attempt to show the E-Cat was real and not “fringe science.” You may indeed order a 1 MW plant from there with four months delivery and currently they are offering a 1 MW plant free to a user in Europe on the understanding it will be open to the public.

There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers at LENR-CANR.org. I find it likely that the group-think conclusion here that it is impossible to overcome the Coulomb barrier will prevail over the experimental evidence, but of course it shouldn’t. I am more interested in getting the article corrected than being an editor.

References. 1. Rossi’s blog http://www.rossilivecat.com/all.html 2. Old Popular Science article http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-10/andrea-rossis-black-box?single-page-view=true Used in Wiki, written before the 3rd party test. 3. Current PopSci article http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/cold-fusion-machine-gets-third-party-verification-inventor-says 4. Elforsk Primary source http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://www.elforsk.se/&prev=/search?q=Elforsk 5. Test Report by Dr. Levi http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/arxiv/papers/1305/1305.3913.pdf 6. Test report by Penon pdf file. http://coldfusionnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/105322688-Penon4-1.pdf 7. Engineering News http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/interest-in-lenr-device-resurges-as-independent-report-is-released-2013-06-07 Secondary source 8. Andy Gibbs Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/30/rossis-a-fraud-no-hes-not-yes-he-is-no-he-isnt/ Adrian Ashfield Parallel (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any modification of the topic ban. It seems clear to me that Parallel is here to push a fringe viewpoint. This appeal shows that the editor has every intent of continuing on the same path. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Any normal person reading the piece would conclude that the E-Cat doesn’t work and Rossi is a criminal pursuing fraud" - that's because it doesn't, and while fraud is an unacceptable word to use due to WP:BLP, 'completely unscientific woo woo bullshit' is perfectly fine. When and if (never and not gonna happen) Rossi actually submits the device to real peer review--that means no restrictions--that will be the time to discuss this snake oil as being useful.

Here's a thing for you: the whole basis of science relies on replicating results. Every single scientist in the world who has discovered something publishes their results so that every other scientist in the world can replicate or disprove them. That is how science works. Rossi does not work this way.

Obviously I oppose lifting this topicban. I said on ANI, every single person who advocates for this spammy scammy bullshit should just be banned from Wikipedia on sight. NPOV doesn't mean swallowing crap. — The Potato Hose 19:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting topic ban. Editor is clearly here solely for the purpose of promoting a fringe idea and product, and has not shown the slightest whiff of a hint of a trace of intent to edit constructively and collaboratively. Has wasted lots of editor time already. Enough is enough. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Norden1990 Harassment

I feel threatened and intimidated, User:Norden1990 behavior make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me. This user also wrote some dubious nationalistic nonsense on my Talk page, Norden1990 has done a lot personal attacks against me (frustrated, chauvinist etc.) and a constructive discussion is really very difficult with this user. I wrote recently also ANI about his harmful speech[2], but now he is trying to discourage me from editing entirely. His last work in the 8th June 13:17 - 17:42 was the deletion step by step of my contributions[3]. So let's analyze his undo-edits:

• Rajka[4] > User:Norden1990 wrote: they are Slovak citizens and not the Slovak ethnic minority in Hungary (so they are not Hungarian citizens) His statement is like from the end of 19th century or communism. Norden1990 is trying to make second-class citizens or some refugees. European Union policies aim to ensure the free movement of people + we have Schengen Area. Slovaks do not need Hungarian id cards or passports. Only nationalists from Jobbik have problems with Slovaks in Rajka[5]. I used 2 sources where is clearly written - Slovaks and the term "Slovak citizens" has a logical error too > Hungarian citizens where 19.4% are Slovaks + "Slovak citizens" where 50% are inhabitants of Rajka, so total Slovak population is ??%. Ridiculously. They live and pay bills there, they are owner of homes and estates. Yes, they are all Slovaks in Hungary. On the WP is not the place for first-class citizens and second-class citizens or for discrimination.
• Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1538)[6] > this is clear bad faith, I reverted questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.179.152 back to stable version. User:Norden1990 did not use citation needed template, but he deleted very well known fact which has thousands of sources.
• Adam František Kollár > I edited dubious edit of questionable "newbie" IP editor - 178.164.161.19 and then User:Norden1990 reverted my contrib[7] back to IP 178.164.161.19 version. User Norden1990 used anachronistic dubious POV names. I used according to NPOV in good faith accurate historical names in the multilingual and multiethnic country[8]. My version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Neosolium) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Banská Bystrica"). Norden1990's version: Kollár's parents moved to Banská Bystrica (Besztercebánya) where he attended a Jesuit middle school. He later used the town's Latin name (Neosolium) as an appendix to his own name in some of his Latin publications − Pannonius Neosoliensis ("Pannonian of Besztercebánya"). My version has logical etymological content and name "Besztercebánya" was valid and used only in 1863 – 1913 in the period of Magyarization. And another Norden1990's names: Selmecbánya 1863 - 1873, Nagyszombat 1863 – 1913, Liptószentmiklós 1863 – 1913.
• University of Trnava[9] > User:Norden1990 wrote: English name is enough in this article - He added only anachronistic names for Trnava, other terms this user deleted. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. According to NPOV in good faith I added latin name for Archbishop of Esztergom and Pázmány, because Latin was official language[10]. I added Pázmány's Slovak name because the article is about University of Trnava in the Slovakia. I also added neutral correct historical names for Slovak city Trnava. User:Norden1990 recently wrote that "The mention of other name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid." in the article Giglovce[11] (with typical editing habits against my contribs), where 0,00% Magyars live, Norden1990's added name is totally unknown, unimportant, it was used in the period of Magyarization + there are also other names, but he added only this one. And this is aftermath[12]. Indeed quality of the article first.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)