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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"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

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 73 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 70 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 70 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

(Initiated 51 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

(Initiated 47 days ago on 28 May 2024)

Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 44 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

(Initiated 44 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

(Initiated 39 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

(Initiated 35 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. No longer able to close, another closer should look into this. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

(Initiated 10 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	7	6	13
TfD	0	0	0	2	2
MfD	0	1	0	1	2
FfD	0	0	0	15	15
RfD	0	0	4	13	17
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

(Initiated 53 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

(Initiated 49 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 July 14#File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp

(Initiated 0 days ago on 14 July 2024) Already has absurdly unwieldy number of comments. Needs an experienced closer who is familiar with copyright policy for files. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

(Initiated 142 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 47 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 42 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 36 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:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#When can titles contain "massacre"?

(Initiated 28 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally#Requested move 13 July 2024

(Initiated 0 days ago on 13 July 2024). Per WP:SNOWPRO, might want to take a look at this one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by JPxG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus appears to been established. LJF2019 ^talk 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: This is already listed in the "other types of closing requests" section. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Cha Eun-woo#Listing of "model" as a profession

(Initiated 0 days ago on 14 July 2024) Requesting a uninvolved editor for proper closure as this discussion was created due to a dispute, discussion from registered users has stale, and currently is causing WP:WHATABOUT spamming by multiple IPs likely to be fans. In addition, based on closure's results, please also help to update the lead accordingly. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Site ban Kumioko (and IPs)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closed by Jehochman. See his comment at the bottom. Nyttend (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Please see prior discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive259#Block_review:Kumioko.2FIPs.

I do think Kumioko's criticisms of Wikipedia have some validity (but certainly not to the degree his asserts), and opposed a block / ban in the above discussion.

I do not care care about an editor "disrupting" insider places like noticeboards and the like, because, well, in the big scheme of things that's not really important.

However, when an editor misinforms / stirs the pot [1] with a new editor who has been having a very difficult time transitioning onto Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_bullying.2C_harassment_and_endless_threats) I consider that active, ongoing damage to the project, and therefore suggest it is time to show K the door. NE Ent 03:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've been willing to show him the door for some time now, as soon as his contributions became a net negative. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban with appeal after six months Criticism is fine, but it is not satisfactory for Wikipedia to be used as a forum where someone can repeatedly add commentary that does nothing but derail discussions. Like the link in the OP, Kumioko recently added some very unfortunate comments at the talk page of someone who is a good editor but who appears utterly unable to let some disagreements go (Kumioko posted as 108.45.104.158 and 138.162.8.59 at this talk). The editor previously had problems which were at least partially caused by encouragement from misguided onlookers, and it is most unhelpful for Kumioko to derail a discussion on the talk page of someone who could be very productive, if they understood that disagreements cannot be dominated by repetitive walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, very much I don't think, in the big picture, that Kumioko's comments are posing a problem. I don't care if he is only using IPs to comment, or if most of his contributions lately have been to criticize the way Wikipedia is controlled. Italick (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Again, the last discussion just closed. Its really bad form to open up another discussion because you didn't like the outcome of the last one. It should be pretty obvious to everyone at this point that someone is going to continuously reopen ban discussions until they pass because there is no rule here about opening another discussion in X amount of time since the last one. It sure seems like WP:Forum shopping would apply here though. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 12:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  What should happen is that you should stop acting in a way that makes people feel the need to cut you off. Stop rattling around, involving yourself in problems where you comment in a way that makes the problem worse. If an editor behaving problematically, it is not kind for you to egg them on, as you have been doing with NinaGreen. Try to be kind and helpful, rather than acerbic and combative. Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  The ironic part of that statement is I believe the admin tools should be used sparingly and indefinite blocks should be even more rare. Yet you doled out an indefinite ban to Nina without a thought. Sure she has her problems as we all do, but jumping straight to an indefinite ban is, point blank, abusive. You threw out an indefinite ban when a week would do. That is the kind of action that admins do that I have a problem with. Yet because I called you out and agreed with Nina on some points now I deserve to be banned? That's ridiculous but typical abusive admin bullshit. I had thought you were a pretty good admin before you went and pulled that shenanigan just to prove that you could. I am seriously disappointed in you. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support If one of the people who actively supported his actions in the last discussion thinks he has now crossed the line. And I already thought he crossed the line, then I have to agree that he needs to be shown the door. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The previous ANI was not closed in Kumioko's favour and certainly did not enable him to continue his behaviour with impunity. It said "..Kumioko; grow up, start contributing to the encyclopaedia." Specifically in relation to contributing to the encyclopaedia, this has not happened. While the link provided by NE Ent might be a truism, it is wholly inappropriate to wander around the place looking for potential inductees into the Kumioko school of thought. Kumioko satisfies almost every point under WP:NOTHERE an important directive on numerous policies concerning collaboration. That last thing we need is for new editors to be approached on the basis that being NOT HERE is the way forward. Any community member should be given the absolute right to either hat or remove any Kumioko post that they feel is damaging. No notification, no response, just delete and ignore. Much along the lines of WP:RBI. This might require an Arbcom. sanction. Kumioko can (so he has indicated) evade blocks. Leaky Caldron 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. As may be well known, I have been a severe critic of Kumioko's behaviour, and it was for pretty much that reason that I abstained from voting on the last ban discussion. While his incessant whining about the same things became tedious a long time ago, I wasn't overly concerned about it as long as he kept it to the usual forums. But now that his behaviour has branched out into deliberate misrepresentation and outright trolling on user talk pages - of users that a great many of the very same admins Kumioko routinely trashes spent considerable time trying to help - it becomes obvious that Kumioko's WP:NOTHERE issues have moved from simply being annoying, to being actively disruptive. Enough is enough. Resolute 14:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I sense a bunch of custodians here hankering the convenience of losing a critic. I didn't see any intimation at NinaGreen's talk page that an editor should behave problematically. Kumioko's dialog doesn't look like a WP:NOTHERE to me, because of what WP:NOTHERE is not (expressing unpopular opinions, advocating changes to Wikipedia policies). I think you can all deal with having Kumioko around. Italick (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I am certainly not a custodian of any description and I resent the implication that I want a critic silenced. I'm a critic myself of many of the things about which Kumioko complains and Kumioko would not dispute that. I haven't seen you around in the same areas that Kumioko frequents so you will not be aware of debilitating effect his contributions can have by means of forking, throwing water on and hijacking otherwise potentially fruitful discussions. FWIW, the following 4 headings under WP:NOTHERE are amply evidenced over the last 2 years:

Little or no interest in working collaboratively - Extreme lack of interest in working constructively and in a cooperative manner with the community where the views of other users may differ; extreme lack of interest in heeding others' legitimate concerns; interest in furthering rather than mitigating conflict.

Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention - Major conflicts of attitude, concerning Wikipedia-related activity. A user may have extreme or even criminal views or lifestyle in some areas, or be repugnant to other users, and yet be here to "build an encyclopedia". However some activities are by nature inconsistent with editing access, such as legal threats against other users, harassment, or actions off-site that suggest a grossly divergent intention or gross undermining of the project as a whole. Editors must be able to relax collegially together. There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect.

Inconsistent long-term agenda Users who, based on substantial Wikipedia-related evidence, seem to want editing rights only in order to legitimize a soapbox or other personal stance (i.e. engage in some basic editing not so much to "build an encyclopedia" as to be able to assert a claim to be a "productive editor"... whereas in fact by their own words or actions their true longer-term motive is more likely to be "not here to build an encyclopedia").

Having a long-term or "extreme" history that suggests a marked lack of value for the project's actual aims and methods - This may include repeated chances and warnings, all of which were flouted upon return, or promises to change that proved insincere, were gamed, or otherwise the word or spirit was not actually kept.

Leaky Caldron 15:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This is just pure BS. I have worked with a lot of editors on this project over the years and the only ones I have a problem with are admins who think they control the project because they have a few extra tools and editors with POV or Ownership issues. I have an interest in working collaboratively and constructively as long as I am allowed to do so.

I do have a problem with some policies on the project, that's true. I have a problem with abusive admins being able to do whatever they want, whenever they want and to whomever they want. I also have a problems with Arbcom'slack of interest in doing anything about it and even giving the admins more power to abuse.

The only long term agenda I have, and one that seems to interfere with some admins and editors with their own agendas is that I want Wikipedia to not suck. It has become a toxic environment full of article owners, POV pushers and bullies and no one has the morale courage to do anythign about it. That includes you and all the way up to Arbcom. No one wants to do anything about the hard problems.

Again this one is pure BS, I fully support the projects AIM's and goals but I do not support the project that used to be Wikipedia that has been infested with miscreants, bullies and bloggers who would rather type in discussions at ANI and block everyone who doesn't agree with them. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't even remotely true. There have been numerous non-admins that have !voted to ban you or have asked you to tone yourself down, so its hardly just the admins that have problems with you. And I don't just mean a few, there have been quite a large number. You instead ignore everyone who doesn't completely agree 100% with you and continue on creating a toxic environment in every discussion you enter into. I fully support peoples right to discuss and try to make change, but you don't really do that, you throw around attacks and egg on disruption. You essentially do everything you accuse the big bad admins of doing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, its completely true but there's no point in arguing with you because even if I provided diffs of helping people someone would just argue it away. The fact is there is a few folks (admins and regular 2nd class citizen editors) that have wanted me out of the project for years, they didn't like me restarting WikiProject US and took advantage of every opportunity to destroy that project and every project that I was trying to keep going. It weakened their grasp of the articles they "owned". No matter what I did, there was always some admin with a problem who was ready to block for stepping into their turf and no admins wanting to intervene. That's why I stopped editing and startted advocating for reform. Too few admins including you are following the rules and just enforce policy whenever its most convenient for the admin who is peddling their POV. I even tried to go to another Wikia project and found some of the same characters had a strangle hold there too. So I stopped editing Mediawiki projects altogether and now I edit over at Wikia where they need help and want it. So the bottom line here is if you and your wikipals want to ban me here because you are too chickenshit or don't have the morale courage to do some reforms that would benefit the project, then that's life. You bitch and moan about my complaints and wanting to make this project better and allow things to get done without 6 month backlogs because only 5 admins know how to do it, but you don't have the time of desire to do anything to help the project. I could be doing 20, 000+ edits a month here instead of at Wikia plus other things to help the project but all you fucks want to do is keep whatever power you have. I don't care what you do at this point because this project deserves to have editors who are dedicated to the project and want to make it better, but as long as admins are allowed to abuse their tools with impunity, this project is going to get that, abusive editors who only care about their POV and not the project. The problem with this site isn't the lack of people who are interested in participating, its in the lack of ability to manage its abusive admins. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

See you are again spinning it. Nowhere did I say you haven't at some point in time helped people. What I said was your comment that only admins are the ones who have problems with you wasn't true. Its very simple to prove by looking at the previous ban/block discussions and see the users who aren't admins who commented supporting blocks or bans. You make this out to be that its the admins who are after you, but it isn't. There have been editors of all strips who have been pissed off and annoyed at the toxic atmosphere that you inject into every discussion you push your way into. The problem this wiki has is a problem managing its abusive editors period, which includes yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not spinning it, I just don't agree with you. Yes there are non admins who don't like me but this is Wikipedia there will always be someone who doesn't like what your doing. The difference is its the admins who continue to block me so I cannot even comment in discussions like this about me. Its the minority group of abusive admins that I keep talking about that use the tools abusively to their own ends and POV. Yet rather than remove the tools from these few trouble makers its more important to keep me quite and protect them. Because if the regular editors were trusted, the admins would lose all their power and the role of admin wouldn't be such a hat to collect. You can ban me from the project if you want, but its not going to solve the problems of this site. It just shows that the community is more accepting of abusive admins and editors than in editors who are trying to solve that problem. Don't like how I am trying to do it? Fine, step up. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Excellent summary by Leaky caldron. Binksternet (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • Actually, Italick, you hit on exactly why I didn't !vote in the last discussion. But the issue here is that Kumioko has moved beyond simple whining criticism, but into out right disruption and trolling. That is why I am casting my ballot this time around. Resolute 15:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. Clearly WP:NOTHERE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Since Kumioko evades blocks by using IPs and keeps editing, I'm not sure what effect an indefinite block will have on his contributions to Wikipedia. I know that this is not a good rationale to have when considering blocks but I thought I'd bring it up, whether a block would bring about the desired effect. If an indefinite block is decided upon, I think there should be an ability to appeal after a specified amount of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support per User:Johnuniq's terms. I have seen a lot of Kumioko's...rants, shall I say, though I've never really involved myself in a conversation with them (as far as I can remember), and I think taking it to Cowhen and others' User talk pages is taking it too far. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666 on "wikibreak", heh.)
• Support a site ban for Kumioko. Enough is enough. Nsk92 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Seeking out pages of new editors who have been blocked to use them as complaining platforms about Wikipedia in general might give an impression of "stirring up the pot" and "soapboxing". Doing it once isn't banworthy though. Aside from the impression that the behavior may leave, it does not exactly seem different from debating and voting on conflicts in the more central drama areas of Wikipedia like ANI and ARBCOM. People get dragged there, often unbidding of the negativity and scrutiny that ensues, just as if the whole conflict alternatively stayed contained within user talk pages. Yet the views expressed in ANI do not need to have popular consensus, and criticism of this project and its policies is accepted. In those places, there is no presumed violation of WP:NOTHERE for comments, criticisms and complaints. Is there some special rule that puts user talk pages off-limits for the kinds of discussion accepted in noticeboards? I'm not in favor of sheltering admins from scrutiny by prohibiting discussions on user pages which are routine in ANI. Italick (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • He's done it at least twice, and will probably continue if unchecked. In both cases, his "contribution" to the discussion was at best non-constructive. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)

• Support. Time to put an end to this. "Wikipedia has become a fucking joke" is not constructive criticism, and nor is empty hand-waving about unidentified "abusive admins"; nor is repeatedly calling identified people "jerks". There is a huge amount of disruption created by Kumioko, and it's been going on for a very long time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. These bi-weekly ban proposals got old some time ago; they are in fact much more disruptive than anything Kumioko has done in all of his +100,000 nothere edits. If we must identify Kumioko's faults, they are inarguably that he is passionate about Wikipedia, and that he holds the arcane ideal that a discussion still includes the viewpoints of opposing sides. He does not ask, and then answer himself, but rather is seen replying to the comments, (provocations), from others. If he is to be banned from Wikipedia, it should be decided by a full Arbcom case—not here! It has been shown numerous times, (far too many), to not be what a consensus of editors want.—John Cline (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is a bad idea to ban an editor merely because he took an extended break from editing articles and is using the appropriate places to complain about what he doesn't like here (user pages, noticeboards). His comments were not disruptive because they were not excessively long or numerous, and it is possible to work around them if you disagree. I didn't find any "goading" or "baiting" at NinaGreen or Cowhen1966. Italick (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Kumioko is a nuisance at best. I don't think he's majorly disruptive, but he doesn't contribute much value these days and I don't see the benefit in keeping him around. I think it's better for both parties if ties are cut, at least for a while. Perhaps a 6-12 month break will give him a fresh perspective and allow him to learn to appreciate some of the things that most of us appreciate around here, but at this point I think it verges on being unhealthy and obsessive to stalk around a website and a community that he clearly has animosity for. N^oformation ^Talk 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Kumioko is engaging in disruptive and repetitive argumentation instead of providing positive contributions. Kumioko is also encouraging other editors to do so. Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support because I partly agree with User:John Cline. This user is a net negative to the encyclopedia and is evidently trying to further demoralize existing demoralized editors. Community ban is not always effective with long-term negative editors due to their entourages. ArbCom may be a better forum. If there is community consensus, I will support it. If there is a majority but not "consensus", someone should file with ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Supportive In the last go around. I "supported something", in part because the editor (who seemingly goes by several ids) has made it clear on numerous occasions, he does not like it here, he has said he would soon leave, and then that he was already banned, by at one time naming his account "banned editor" (assuming it is him) (and that he was fine with being banned) and I also recall in December, him saying, he would not edit on the Pedia after January 1. Not sure why, he cannot extricate himself from in his view this abusive place (perhaps we are now in a cycle of abuse that just needs to end), but it seems he needs assitance in this regard and nothing else has helped, maybe this will. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, trout nom. These constant block proposals and long winded discussions are quickly becoming disruptive to the building of the encyclopedia, perhaps more so than Kumioko himself. Let the fool rant. I just can't see the argument that this is a "net negative". Mostly he's just making rants on noticeboards and Jimbo's talk. With noticeboards the best thing to do is to ignore. Jimbo, of course has full control over his own talk page, and he is welcome to suppress discussion there as necessary. For these editors having trouble with him, I recommend you do the wise thing of not poking the bear. KonveyorBelt 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Problem is, he is diversifying - to other users' talks, if you read Ent's first statement and Johnuniq's comment. If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be having this proposal here. 206.117.89.8 (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC) (User:Ansh666)
  • It doesn't matter if he is diversifying because it is not a problem. When admins are not sheltered from criticism, the system is working as it should. Italick (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NOTHERE. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Long overdue. Kumioko's continued malignant presence in already-controversial areas of the project, such as RfA, is a major contributing factor in creating the toxic environment against which he so vociverously protests. He's had more than enough chances to grow up and work positively, and this lurch into the practice of trying to discourage new editors, his tongue drilling a hole in his cheek the whole time, is the last straw. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious but if 10 editors out of 10, 000+ vote to ban me, including about 5 out of 1400 admins, is that really a consensus? Why don't you all just go ahead and send this to Arbcom. So few editors have voted here I am not going to consider it a valid ban if there isn't more votes. Besides that, honestly, do you really think a ban is going to keep me from commenting? Are you willing to ban all IP's? Just what extreme measures are you prepared to use to prevent me from editing? Besides that Basilisk, yuor pretty rude to editors in your interactions, I am not doing anything you haven't said before to someone. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom exists to solve problems the community cannot. Doesn't appear that their intervention will be required here. Resolute 21:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree he is no longer here to build an encyclopedia, which is a shame. Secret ^account 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, it is a shame. I devoted a lot of time to this project and tried so hard to make it better. In the end though, the toxic environment, the entrenched abusive admins and constant insults got to me. I used to be very passionate about the project, now I have no respect for the project whatsoever. All the people who say they want to make it better are just spouting platitudes. There is no interest in making this site better, everyone is too worried about what power they can grab for themselves, the POV they are pushing and the articles they own. This site has completely lost its purpose and direction due to a bunch of self centered, out for themselves admins. If I could undo every edit I did I would. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Motion to close this discussion. We don't need a pile on. The consensus is clear. Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Make sure you block that IP you think is me along with the 6 accounts AGK accused of being me. You might wanna submit me to SPI, there are probably a couple hundred more users you can block and accuse of being me as well. At least once I am blocked the Arbcom and the abusive admins on this site will feel a little less heat and can get back to their POV pushing and article ownership. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll close this, since I haven't voted. The decision is a mandatory wiki-break for Kumioko. Take a rest, and if you would like to return after, say 6 months, send me or any admin an email, and we will arrange it, assuming that you've truly taken a break, and that you're ready to come back and be productive. I'm purposefully not going to log this as a ban. Think of it as a wikibreak. If you start socking or trouble making, this courtesy might be rescinded. Jehochman ^Talk 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

• I'm sorry Jehochman, but that is effectively a supervote. The discussion was for a community ban, and that is what the consensus is. Also, if you are going to close the discussion, follow up and block the IPs he's using - he's said his piece already. The one part I do agree with is that if he avoids socking for six months, a community discussion to arrange his return could be held. Resolute 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I would have to agree with Resolute, consensus here is clearly for a ban, thus it should be logged as a ban and the IPs he is using should be blocked. Essentially you closed this completely opposite to consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  Well of course you agree, you have both been trying to get rid of me for more than 4 years. You might also want to range block the entire Verizon Fios network and the Whole 138.xx range. While your at it, you may want to change the rules to prevent any IP's from editing. Also, all those SPI accounts are mine too so that should help you clear off the back log at SPI. You can also assume any new accounts after the ban are me, so there won't be any new editors to WP. That is how truly stupid and ineffective this ban is. Oh yeah, better block T-mobile as well, I wouldn't want to use my phone to edit. At this point its pretty obvious that you are going to keep submitting me to AN until you get the vote you want. Surely you must have noticed the turn out is smaller and smaller. Because the rest of the community sees how petty and deceitful you all are. If you don't like the result, just submit it again and again until you get the one you want. And you really think I should respect that sort of petty and childish antics. No, I do not. Its just another example of admins being abusive to editors they don't like or aren't in their cliche'. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

  You know...threatening to do everything you can to disrupt the wiki only proves the case that you aren't really here to try and improve things. Because someone who actually wanted to improve things wouldn't purposefully try to harm it. But if you want to act like a child who didn't get his way then go ahead. It only ends up proving that everyone was right about you. -DJSasso (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  I don't see the point in conversing with a banned editor. At this point, it looks like you are challenging a banned editor's reputation, which policy tells us not to do. Italick (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the rationale for not logging this as a community ban, which had a clear consensus. I too, would have supported it if the discussion hadn't been precipitously closed. Jehochman, can you please explain your thinking here? Are you aware that as you were closing this, Kumioko, via one of his IPs hit upon the new tactic of summoning NinaGreen to his talk page, via Echo [2] [3]? Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I was letting her know I would not be responding to her comments on her talk page because I was about to get banned. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Kumioko said nothing of the kind in that edit. He said: "I think its kinda funny and at the same time kinda sad that jehochman protected your page because an IP left a comment. He even accused them of being me. Apparently its gotten to the point where any IP that edits is actually me in disguise. Good Luck because once an editor is blocked on this project they are marked for life. Every admin will now hesitate a little less when seeing you were once blocked indefinitely, and that's if you even decide to come back at all". – Voceditenore (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok go ahead and log it. You all should try to be kind to people. But Kumioko clearly hasn't responded well to kindness. Jehochman ^Talk 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I have reponded poorly to kindness. Show me were someone was kind and I didn't respond in kind? If people are nice to me I am nice in return but I no longer feel I need to be nice to people who, in many cases, have been jerks to me and had absolutely nothing done about it. I didn't see these kind people when I was erroneously blocked back in 2010, or again in 2012. I dind't see many kind words when I filled out any of my RFA's, not even the one back on about 2008. People on Wikipedia are not nice because the admins don't do anything about it, particularly to other admins. They just buddy up and whoever has the most tools wins. That my friends is why people don't edit here. Its not because they aren't interested or because they kind find things to do. Its because you people run down any editor who hasn't been here since the start. There are so many rules and policies no one can even remember them all. So as I said before. Do whatever you want, ban me, put a hex on me, whatever. I'm tired of feeling like Sisyphus getting plowed over by boulders. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added Kumioko to the list of banned editors, going by the consensus I see above, and Jehochman's concession to the idea of banning. -- Atama頭 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I have also blocked Kumioko and left a banned editor notice, if there are any IPs that need to be blocked (or range-blocked) I'll leave that to others to deal with. -- Atama頭 22:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Procedural note: I haven't interacted with Kumioko (knowingly) recently, or in the past that I can recall, nor have I participated in any discussions about Kumioko. My actions are to reflect the consensus in this discussion. I'm aware that Kumioko has technically abandoned their user account, but felt that the blocking of the account and banner left were proper procedure. -- Atama頭 22:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let the games begin! Poker player 2010 (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• And now my user talk page is being harassed, I suppose I should have expected that. :/ -- Atama頭 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked and tagged as suspected, thanks for volunteering. Sigh. Pakaran 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep you should have. For what its worth Atama, I don't hate you or feel any malice towards you. You were just following the desires of the abusive admins and editors that have gathered on this page to ban me from the project I cared about. I believed in the project and worked my butt off to help build a good encyclopedia but all I got was spit on and insulted. You showed me that this project is nothing more than a joke. So, if you want me to be bad, I'll be bad. Happy editing. You got one and I'll give you another. I wonder how long I can keep this up? I bet I created hundreds of accounts. Maybe even thousands anticipating this day coming. I wonder how long it takes before I can get Wikipedia to ban all IP's? ~I bet it only takes a few weeks. WimpyKid1996 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Kumioko, why would you try to get Wikipedia to ban all IPs by making a bunch of throwaway sock accounts rather than IPs? It seems like a backward strategy. Binksternet (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, so far, we have 2 IPs as well as the 4 accounts. Not all tagged, but all blocked in the past hour. Pakaran 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)f

Did we really just community ban an editor for giving advice to another editor? Yes, I fully realize there is a history, but a recent request was closed with no consensus, and the only new thing noted was some advice to an editor to stay away from ANI. If I am reading correctly, Kumioko warned an editor that taking something to ANI might result in that editor getting blocked. As we know, that editor took something to ANI...and got blocked. Doesn't necessarily make it great advice, even if i had been delivered before the block, but was it so egregiously bad to deserve a six month ban? That's a rhetorical question, because a number of editors apparently think a ban is deserved.

I will take this occasion to ask a non-rhetorical question. I note roughly 48 hours between the request for a ban and the closure of the request. While sympathetic to Jehochman's desire to avoid a pile-on, I'd like to question whether 48 hours is long enough to make such a decision. We take longer to decide whether to use an en-dash or a hyphen in certain phrases, is it really unreasonable to think that we should take at least a week to enact a community ban?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CBAN suggests a minimum 24 hour wait, this was nearly double that. -- Atama頭 00:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This sure does smell like a forum shopping job and I am unconvinced that latest sock accounts to post here were not operated by gravedancers. There have been many people making concerted attempts to troll and bait Kumioko. I noted this when my talk page took short-lived hits of vandalism after I supported Kumioko in his last adminship candidacy. Italick (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Italick: definitely him. See the SPI below. ₆an⁶sh₆ 19:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say we just community banned an editor for trolling, disruptive behaviour, WP:POINT and WP:NOTHERE. Suggesting that his posts on those user talk pages were simply "giving advice" strains credulity. Resolute 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Was semiprotecting this page really necessary? KonveyorBelt 00:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It'll expire in just a few hours, but the user does seem to have stopped editing at least for the moment. Pakaran 01:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet another self-confessed Kumioko sock here on the page of another user. Leaky Caldron 11:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI/Sockfarm sub-discussion

 Checkuser note: There's a pretty big (60+) sockfarm here. Full list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumioko for those who are interested. T. Canens (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, here. ₆an⁶sh₆ 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't suppose this can be closed and the petulant child be put into the naughty corner? I've been watching this fiasco for days and this is ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Great maker! If ever there was doubt that the time for inactivity is over, it is now. Not only are they making Bad Faith sockpuppets, but deliberately announcing that their goal is to get innocent editors ensnared in the block/ban to get the restrictions on the person overturned or lessened. I think it's time to be creative with the use of the tool set and enact a infinite (not indefinite) community ban on Kumioko as the time for soft hands is over. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

To the contrary, per deny, now is definitely time for inactivity of sort, i.e. rbi; there's no benefit to continue discussing the editor as that only rewards attention seeking attention. We can't impose any "infinite" sanction because we can't restrict the Wikipedia community of the future. NE Ent 16:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A community ban is about as "infinite" as it gets on Wikipedia. The only way I know of to overturn a community consensus ban is with a community consensus unban. That's not easy to accomplish. The community ban as implemented above is about as strong a censure of an editor that I know of. -- Atama頭 17:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that there is truly no such thing as the standard offer? If not, the WP:SO essay should be nominated for deletion, though I will not actually be the one to do this. Italick (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard offer page is only an essay, not policy, and it's possible that the "variations" section would apply because of the recent sockpuppetry and vandalism. Peter James (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It is an essay, as observed above. I'm not asking how the notion might be used to bring Kumioko back. I just don't think that there is a standard offer if a banned editor needs to stand a popularity trial to come back. If so, WP:SO is not even remotely a descriptor of how Wikipedia works. Italick (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not an official standard offer, but it's a standard supported by many users, so Wikipedia sometimes works that way. It's similar to the situation with admin recall, which has sample criteria but some admins vary the process and others are not open to recall, that doesn't mean the admin recall pages should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard offer is sometimes what is suggested when there is a suggestion that a community ban be overturned. There is still a requirement that a community consensus be established to support the standard offer. It's not an automatic thing, where an indef block or ban is overturned every time an editor follows what is in the essay. It just saves a lot of time in such situations because you can start the discussion on a noticeboard and say that the sanctioned editor is willing to follow the standard offer without necessarily having to come up with some sort of deal from scratch. -- Atama頭 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, NE Ent is right, just apply a coat of DENY/RBI and take away the baby's rattle. "I'll just make tons of socks!" isn't exactly a new and effective strategy. No need for an "infinite" ban discussion, as Kumioko has effectively infinitely banned themselves--no admin in their right mind would unblock him, they'd be desysopped so quick their mop would spin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The standard offer does not apply to a Person Who is running a sock farm with 60+ socks, that is ridiculous! But we have to tread carefully, because I fear that this will get him roused up enough that he might attack Wikipedia Via code/hacking and use a denial of service attack. This guy is bent on ruining Wikipedia. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic: Request to be unblocked for the purpose of participating in the RFCU about his block

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

---

I'm sure that many will sigh, roll their eyes and probably face palm at seeing @Colton Cosmic:'s name again on this noticeboard. Currently there is an RFC/U (see further up for link to it) on the conditions surrounding his block, which was raised by @GB fan:. I won't go into the particulars of the situation but I'm sure most will be familiar with it. On his talk page, CC has made a statement that he should be allowed to participate in the RFC/U. I made the offer that should he so wish that I would be willing to post a review request on AN to determine community consensus as to whether he should or should not be unblocked to participate. I also posted on the RFC/U talk page to seek opinions of those who have been involved (for which I thank them). I will not be making a for or against statement with regards to this review to unblock, nor do I intend to make any views on CC's declarations, which are visible in my talk page history from the various IP's that he has been using.

To whit,

1. CC may be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U where he is only to answer questions directed to him but is not to rehash the same material leading to the indef block. Failure to abide by this restriction will lead to an immediate re-block
2. Badgering of commentary will similarly attract an immediate re-block
3. Comments should only be related to the conditions surrounding their initial block and not for any subsequent blocks or admin actions taken against them (I also hope that the RFC/U stays focused enough on the topic which is his initial block as I know that later actions have been taken against him but are not the subject of the RFC/U.)
4. Personal attacks of any sort will lead to an immediate re-block

These are a few of my thoughts on the kind of conditions that would be attached to such a temporary unblock and as such are not exhaustive. Blackmane (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I believe in second chances so I'm for a temporary unblock but I'm doubtful whether all of these four conditions can be met. It will be very hard to comment on the initial block without rehashing the arguments surrounding it and NOT discussing subsequent admin actions. I understand why the conditions were set up, it would just be remarkable if for a WP discussion to strictly stay on topic so I'm not sure if he is being set up to fail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than open to rewording the conditions. My "conditions", which are more like a train of thought rather than strict conditions, were meant to be a list of things that should be nipped in the bud before having to deal with them down the track. Would a much simplified version as below be more suitable?

CC may be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U and is reminded that badgering, personal attacks and disruption will be met with an immediate reblock

Blackmane (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that is a reasonable condition that could be met, Blackmane. I think this is basic good behavior that should be required of all Wikipedians. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support removing block to allow editor to participate in their RFC/U. It's too easy to re-block if they run amok and will serve as a good indicator of their presumed, more mature attitude and re-dedication to editing by accepted best practices.—John Cline (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Question from a non-admin. Wouldn't these types of situations make the perfect opportunity for using mw:W:LST (installed according to Special:Version) where you could create a section on his talk page and set it up to be transcluded using <section begin=responses />His comments go here<section end=responses />, and then just transclude that section on the RFC/U with {{#lst:User talk:Colton Cosmic|responses}}? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per John Cline. I am One of Many (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I have already expressed deep cynicism about the motives of this editor. However, he should be unblocked subject to the specified conditions, as WP:ROPE, with the understanding that any subsequent reblock is indefinite, and in this case, indefinite may indeed need to be infinite. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's reasonable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support. If we're running an RFCU, we ought to give the guy the chance to participate; the point of an RFCU is to get someone to change objectionable behavior, and there's no point in doing that for someone who's indefinitely blocked. Can't remember who it is, but I've seen an admin create a filter to prevent editors in this situation from editing anything except a few specific pages. Any idea who that is? Might be useful to have a filter preventing CC from editing anywhere except the RFCU, its talk page, and usertalkspace. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support if he agrees absolutely to abide by the decision that is handed down. I'd be happy to give him a voice on the RFCU if he'll go away when it's over (if that's the decision of course...) --Onorem (talk) 02:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose:Colton was already partially unblocked and allowed to edit his talk page again. Given even that trivial amount of freedom, he abused it by canvassing (using the ping function to draw editors to his RFC/U while giving them a lecture about how unjustly he had been treated). He's now sockpuppeting again, using IPs like 69.248.52.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 63.237.92.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 50.242.31.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus more that edit filters are keeping a clamp on. There's no reason to believe that he will ever abide by any restrictions. On a limited scale, John Cline's approach has already been tried, Colton Cosmic already ran amok, and the block has been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kww. BMK (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Whatever other issues there are with CC, I don't think that outright violation of the unblock restrictions is going to happen. They might test the limits, but I don't see them going over it. So, support, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose His case has been made. S/he's astute enough to evade blocks as evidenced by history. There is no evidence that an unblock will advance this cause. It's a vanity plea to edit Phoenix Jones as Colton Cosmic in some sort of self-erotic fantasy. Please let Colton Cosmic fall to the wayside as we already know he has the ability to return quietly. Even if unblocked, a topic ban on super-heroes is warranted. It's a vanity SPA at best. --DHeyward (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. What, he's socking again right now? No way. And please turn this block into a permanent formal community ban at last, with a provision to not allow review before two years are up, so that at least everyboy will know from now on that making yet more requests for review will be futile from the start. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per KWW -- and note that at present it's not necessary anyway, given that AnthonyCole is doing the job for him. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - WP:OFFER applies. He simply needs to not sock at all for 6 months, and then we can consider unblocking him. The RFCU can go on without his input; in some respects it might be better off that way. GiantSnowman 13:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose ... although, I should say "fully support, plus send him a million dollars" because even though I was the FIRST to ever extend WP:OFFER, and have religiously begged him to just follow the damned processes and he'd be welcomed back, he will INSTANTLY choose the opposite path of whatever I suggest out of some bizarre "I hate good, honest advice from someone who actually is looking out for my best interests" fetish that they have. We have a process for someone to participate in noticeboard discussions about them, and any time we've added filters in order to only permit someone to comment in a certainspot, it's worked poorly. I even designed the {{User proxy}} template that will easily allow someone who copy/pastes on their behalf to appropriately/easily attribute the comments back. I have also often suggest we create a section on their usertalk and transclude that section to noticeboard, it's not accepted by the community yet ES&L 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• ES&L, this is exactly what I was asking about above. Would you like to hit me up on my talk page about drafting up an RfC to see if community support can be gained for this type of usage? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wikipedia has no limit of blocks and unblocks. If he s disruptive, i is easy as the click of a button to go back and block him again. If you are opposing because of WP:OFFER,. save that for the RfC. This is a discussion on he RfC alone, not about his overall behavior. KonveyorBelt 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose entirely per Kww who's summed it up nicely!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support As a matter of process, I believe that an individual who is the subject of an RfC or an AN/I or ARBCOM case should be able to participate in the discussion. Otherwise, it is like a trial without a defense lawyer, it's inherently biased against the subject because they are not able to face their detractors and address their concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Liz, we have a process in place for him to participate right now that is very effective. Unblocking is not a part of that process. He's choosing not to take part using that process so that he can claim "unfair" - in other words, he's "cutting off his nose to spite his face" ES&L 12:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww and KonveyorBelt (ironically). Already given a limited opportunity to offer up arguments on their talk page, and immediately abused it. I am not seeing an upside to allowing them even greater leeway to abuse the community's good faith. Resolute 23:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As I've said before, if critics we're given more tolerance on-Wiki, there'd likely be less need to congregate in darkened off-Wiki corners. Tarc (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Colton Cosmic's demonstrated behaviour across several loosening of sanctions against his account. Unblocking his talk page resulted in multiple ping'ings of third parties, four at a time, accompanied by propaganda for his point of view, and re-pings if he felt they didn't respond fast enough. This is alongside him describing those who don't agree with him as (for example) "that weirdo", even after they try to help him. Can we be sure he said that? No, because he uses multiple different IP addresses across multiple different target pages to try to avoid being responsible for his own posts. Put an end to it. It's too much. Huge negatives and zero positives. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the level of appealing this block sets a very bad precedent. By all accounts this has been drug before damn near every admin, Jimbo, Arbcom etc. If he wants to come back abide by the block and quit sockingserial block evasion or sock and not be so blatant about it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that some of Supports/Opposes seem to be implying that this is a request to permanently unblock CC. Just to clarify, this is not a third party request to unblock nor is it a review of the current blocks. It's a gauge of community consensus to determine whether there is support to temporarily unblock CC for the sole purpose of participating in the RFC/U.

I hasten to reassure you that my aim is not to badger your support/oppose, but to ensure that you are !voting on the correct point. Apologies in advance if I am stating the obvious. Blackmane (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think KWW summed it up nicely. He's been given rope before. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm pefectly clear that the request was for a temporary unblock. I'm also prefectly clear that someone who can't bring themselves to stop socking, and takes steps to game the system by using his talk page to canvass other editors, isn't deserving of that privilege. The RFC/U -- which essentially amounts to a community discussion on the validity of his being blocked -- can go forward without his participation, and he has only himself to blame for that. BMK (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well then screw the RfC--we all know what the decision will be if the community won't even let him be temp-unblocked, much less fully unblocked. KonveyorBelt 04:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

His participation wasn't going to change the result of the RfC in any case - and one can argue that it was a misuse of that forum, which is designed to deal with the behaviorial problems of editors, not with community oversight of blocks. It should probably be shut down and archived. BMK (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Why shut it down? What's it's going to do is provide community confirmation that the block was valid and that the blocking admin was within their authority, AND (most importantly) Colton Cosmic will never be able to use "I was improperly blocked" as an excuse ever again. He engineered the RFC, and took a risk from the beginning that this would be the outcome (I mean, if he didn't see it, something's wrong). This RFC has the power to actually HELP Colton regain membership in the community by formally eliminating the one thing that's prevented his return all along. ES&L 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the nature of his block evasion by itself justifies a block. There are ways he could've went to resolve this. Imagine if he had just not evaded his block and appealed the block after respecting it, don't you think the community would be more amenable? I think that the hole has been thoroughly self dug at this point. How many other blocked editors are watching this and thinking to themselves this can be a way forward for them too? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What? So confirming the block was valid would help him regain his status in the community? KonveyorBelt 20:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. After having the community once and for all confirm the block (and the community IS the highest court on Wikipedia), the logical and intelligent person says "ok, I've tried everything. Maybe the block was valid after all - or as a minimum, I'd better act as if it was. I guess I had better change my direction. Six months of editing over at Simple Wikipedia won't be so bad, then I'll come back and hopefully they forgive me" Hell, if 6 months from I saw assurances that he had actually changed, and had some history of positive edits AND positive interactions somewhere else, I would personally unblock him myself - also something I've said before, by the way. DP 10:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Kww. Socking at least as recently as yesterday. No thanks. Not temporarily, not conditionally, not now, not ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colton would need to stop the sockpuppetry before I'd be willing to support something like this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Even when they had talk-page access, Colton Cosmic was abusing Echo to canvass people in a blatant manner. Immediately after their talkpage access was revoked, they began to sock with IPs (for the five billionth time). Some of their comments have been abusive, and they've tried very hard to adminshop by contacting a whole bunch of different admins in their desperate attempts for "justice". Colton Cosmic has been given rope multiple times, and has hung themselves with it on every occasion. How easy it is to reblock is irrelevant; almost everyone knows that they will immediately begin to sock if reblocked, and will immediately become a massive nuisance if unblocked (look at their behaviour with the IPs). And unblocking a user with such a poor history before the RfC/U closes sets a very bad example. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, striking previous support. Since there has been socking while this issue was open, we should conclude that he has hanged himself yet again with the WP:ROPE that we offered him. We aren't !voting on whether to upgrade the indefinite block to a site ban, but I would support support a Site Ban with an appeal after no less than two years. A few of us tried to give him one more chance, and he used two more chances to spit at the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Opposte I'm strongly supportive of unblocking people to participate in a RFC/U, AN//I thread (such as unban request) or whatever with the proviso they need to behave properly while unblocked including limiting themselves to wherever they're supposed to be limited to. If you can't even be trusted to edit your own talk page (as the canvassing has shown) and can't avoid socking while people discuss whether to unblock you to participate, I have no reason to think you will behave any better when unblocked. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment I just remembered I was one of the people canvassed. I didn't remember this while writing my response and it doesn't really change my opinion. I didn't mind the ping. And I don't know that CC had any reason to think I would be supportive of them in the RFC (the reason they said they pinged me didn't seem to be one which would leave them to believe I would support them) so in some regards, it's not such simple canvassing. But when you're on as thin a thread as CC apparently was, it's a particularly dumb idea to do anything which looks remotely like canvassing. And it seems clear that approaching random people hoping someone would be sympathetic is something CC has a history of doing. The fact they either didn't appreciate it was illadvised or didn't care, means I don't think we can trust them to be unblocked in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Colton Cosmic denies that using an IP address to edit while blocked is sockpuppetry because it isn't deceptive. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=597674586&oldid=596288496 He appears to be saying that as long as the community knows that he is evading his block, it isn't sockpuppetry. "I wasn't wearing a mask, so it wasn't a crime." Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• It isn't, according to the definition on the Sockpuppetry page: "sockpuppet poses as an independent third-party unaffiliated with the puppeteer". It may be block evasion, but there's probably no other appropriate way to communicate with the other editors, and that's all the IPs are being used for, not to edit content or associated pages, or participate in community discussions. Peter James (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That is the definition from the article on Sock puppet (Internet). The applicable article is the Wikipedia policy on sock puppetry in Wikipedia.

• First any discussion should be based on our policy not our article. And our policy makes it clear "Circumventing policies or sanctions" is an inappropriate use of an alternative account which obviously is meant to include IPs in such cases. Whether or not you want to call it sockpuppetry, it's clearly covered under the sockpuppetry policy so it's really just pointless semantics for CC to try & argue whether or not it should be called sockpuppetry. Second, even our article that you linked to mentions in the LEDE "The term now includes <snipped> or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website." And the article hasn't been modified since 25 February. Nil Einne (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone who claims that editing with an IP address when one's account is blocked is not sockpuppetry is full of shit. The block is for the person not the account, and the person is what's behind the IP. Not only that, but those who deliberately edit with an IP even when their account is not blocked -- which excepts those who accidentally edit while logged out -- is guilty of evading scrutiny, which is also a violation of WP:SOCK. The community has been much too lenient about this, leading to numerous problems which take a long time to clear up. Admins should really block violators of the "evading scrutiny" proscription on sight, it would eliminate a significant source of disruption. BMK (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• support in the interest of increased transparency. Holding an RFC/U while a user is unable to respond directly and openly on the RFC page strikes me as poor practice at best, and I see no probably harm top the project in this very limited unblock. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, tell me, what har will refusing this limited unblock prevent? DES ^(talk) 20:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Allowing an editor who was gaming the system when they had talk page access to have free roam. Setting a precedent that you can get someone to file an RfC/U for any banned editor, no matter how abusive they were, and suddenly they're allowed back, even if it was for the duration of the RfC/U. Allowing someone who has been making completely inaccurate attacks against people (and is still persisting in doing that) to get off scot free. Allowing someone who is block evading to have free roam. There are a whole bunch of very valid reasons why allowing CC to be unblocked prior to the end of the RfC/U to be a very bad idea. The consensus in the RfC/U is also to keep the block in place indefinitely. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• This bastardized RFC/U itself is probably a bad precedent.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't dispute that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree on both points. This is not the first time that an RFC/U has been used as a vehicle for comments on a blocked or banned user, and it was a questionable approach then also. It would be a very bad precedent to establish that a blocked or banned user can request an RFC/U and then request to be unblocked for the purpose of the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support limited unblock, the talk page comment may have been block evasion technically, but the edits have been confined to the pages necessary for communication; that the IPs have been used in limited areas indicates the same can be possible for an unblocked account. Peter James (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support unblock to participate on the condition CC not use notifications to ping editors. No harm will come to the encyclopedia (you know, mainspace, the allegedly important stuff). NE Ent 11:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Summary

After a week, there are 12 supports against 15 opposes. This review has been open for longer than many that I've read. Personally, there does not seem to be much more mileage to be gained from keeping this open. I would like to thank all the editors who have taken their time out to make a comment here and request that an uninvolved admin sum up the consensus and close this up, if there are no objections. Blackmane (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

An option to move forward

Ok so having read one of the above comments on the nature of the edits this may be a desirable middle ground for all. One thing that can be said about Cosmic Colton, he has not edited mainspace and has limited his evasion to block evasion. Granted this takes trusting how honest he is which I am not qualified to comment on. I have done some thinking and realize if I look at it at it from the light of a person just looking for help it mitigates it a small amount. Now I think this can work out best for all parties involved. Let's give CC rope to do a RFC/U with the caveat that if the block comes down to being justified or there is disruption during the process he will be site-banned for a period of one year to be reset each time he block evades. This allows us to hear his grievance in an open forum and allows us to rid the encyclopedia of the distraction one way or another. He would have to agree naturally and some level of last trust left frmo the community. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support; this is reasonable.—John Cline (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - He's had rope given him too often, and I don't trust him to any extent whatsoever. There is no need to ?move forward", he's blocked indef, and should stay that way. The status quo is quite acceptable and the best alternative for the building of an encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't a consensus in the above discussion to unblock him at all, caveats or otherwise. In fact, a quick headcount gives us a 10-to-16 consensus against unblocking. Why does your 'way forward' ignore that consensus? This is getting silly. No more chances, no more bagaining, no more games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose missing the forest for the trees. --Rschen7754 04:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this is kind of like saying that a science experiment with dangerous chemicals should be done even though everyone knows that the chemicals will explode: it's not going to work and it could have negative results. CC, I hope you realize you are being brought here because some people think you can change and become a productive user on this site. Give it 6-9 months of no block evasion and constructive editing on other sister projects (like Commons, Meta, etc.) and then an unblock could be reasonable. But we're not there yet IMHO. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 05:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support I don't understand Cosmic Colton's behavior in all of this. If he had been more cooperative and trusting (assuming he had nothing to hide), it would have never come to this. However, since the whole mess has come this far, I see no harm in unblocking to participate in his RFC/U. No user can break Wikipedia and he will be so carefully watched that if he does anything wrong he will be blocked and banned in minutes. Then it will be over and at least we will be able to say we bent over backwards to be fair. I am One of Many (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You see "no harm" in unblocking an editor who takes whatever steps he feels are necessary to pursue his cause - canvassing, sockpuppetry -- even while asking to be unblocked temporarily? That's taking AGF into a mutual death spiral, I think. This guy is pulling the wool over your eyes, and you see no problem with that. BMK (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

BMK, "no harm" was simply a practical claim. If he did anything wrong, there are so many eyes watching him, he would be blocked in minutes. Actually, the only one who is likely to be harmed by unblocking Cosmic Colton is himself. I am One of Many (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as this is a pretty re-reading of the comments/consensus above. The above discussion should have been simply closed as per its natural end - no need to a restatement of pretty much the same question. Especially considering that CC will never accede to a "site ban" - there'll be more socks than a Fruit of the Loom factory DP 10:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - these requests are bordering on disruptive now, and the consensus in the RfC/U is already very heavily in favour of supporting the block. For other reasons, see my comments in the main thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as misleading and a cruel and unusual punishment. We all know what the result will be of the RfC/U. There is no longer a need for CC to argue his case here. In fact, him doing so and being soundly snowed in is detrimental to any chance of a contructive return. As DangerousPanda said above, the RfC will just be a mirror of the discussion above. If you want him banned, just propose he be banned; there is no longer a point in playing charades about this RfC. KonveyorBelt 22:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Undeletion request

Please undelete Ebrahim Heshmat. I will expand it and add references. --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Sicaspi: You have to go to WP:DRV for the AfD to be reviewed. JMHamo (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that Sicaspi first approached Cirt, the admin who closed the AFD, and Cirt suggested coming here. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sicaspi, s was mentioned at the AfD, there is a copy of the article at Heshmat Taleqani. Just add your sources to it, quickly' It would be technically possible for someone to delete it also, but if sufficient good sources are added, it would meet the original AfD objection and keeping it should be uncontroversial. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Weird, so we had a content fork? Looks as if the same contents existed simultaneously under both titles. Nyttend (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I had not noticed this nor had read the AFD thoroughly, this guy is mostly known as Ebrahim Heshmat Taleqani. May I move it? (Thank y'all for help) --,dgjdksvc;jknhg (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Closers needed for contentious RM

Talk:Kosovo#Requested move is long and has accusations of offline canvassing amongst other problems. Can one or better three uninvolved admins take on the task of closing it carefully? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: open since 13 February 2014, article talk page has had 94 revisions by 31 users since it opened. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• What's the best way to deal with the offsite canvassing? bobrayner (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to do it in the first place. Actually, most of the "support" votes are invited to that page by the offline canvassing this user ostensibly wants to "deals with". Do not be fooled! --200.54.92.187 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

200.54.92.187: perhaps you could log back into your account, instead of using an open proxy.

Everyone else: This is what we have to deal with on articles like Kosovo... bobrayner (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

New good faithed editor with very similar name

I just noticed that a new editor started editing as Ppiotrus (talk · contribs). I thought we had account name filters preventing creation of accounts with very similar name to avoid potential confusion. As far as I can tell this editor is editing in good faith, just started on en wiki, and has no pl wiki account (no pl:Wikipedysta:Ppiotrus exists. Any suggestions whether we/I should ask him to rename his account? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence they're intentionally targeting / mocking Piotrus, I'd let it be. NE Ent 10:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just notified Ppiotrus, who hadn't been told that this thread concerning them had been started. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Template:CUE That username actually wouldn't have triggered mw:Extension:AntiSpoof because it's not "technically" similar although it is visually similar for humans. What it's intended to catch would be something like User:Pl0tru5. AGF applies to this username until given a reason to believe otherwise (and an ACC creator may override AntiSpoof in certain cases as well because of AGF). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests

Handling edit requests isn't something I've done a lot of, but I just noticed the backlog had reached 101 requests. I looked at two, which dated to January. We are trying to encourage editors with COI to use an edit request rather than make a COI edit, so it behooves us to be responsive. I say this as someone who has not contributed much, but I'll try to handle a few, I hope some others will pitch in as well. Category:Requested edits --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Virutally none of those require an adminstrator, very few are currently protected. It might be a good idea, to notify the relevant project(s) and ask for help. For example, it would need specialist eyes to make a judgement on the request for the addition to Human papillomavirus. Voceditenore (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit requests to unprotected pages are regularly declined with {{subst:EP|hr}} without the need for further work. I kinda wonder why so many requests are made to unprotected pages, it's.... unusual. Is there some trolling going on? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The COI edit requests in the chart at the top of that category are a special case, not trolling. The editors making the requests could do it themselves, but they are following the WP:COI guidance and requesting the edits on the talk pages instead. Voceditenore (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, last October, after 3 weeks with no reply, the COI requester at Human papillomavirus went ahead and added the material themselves. I made a note of that on the talk page, and fixed the template. I suspect in a lot of these cases, the edits have already been made (or declined) but the template hasn't been updated and the talk pages remain in the category. Voceditenore (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Aaah, excellent point. I'm kinda thinking it should be a different template for edit requests for SPP'ed pages (ESp), FPP'ed pages (EP) and and for COI (ECOI?), though. Are you aware if this was discussed at some point? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I had no idea there were these COI edit request templates until now, but see Template talk:Request edit. They seem to be different from the ones normally used when a page is protected or semi-protected—Template:edit protected. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Voceditenore, I appreciate that most of these requests are for unprotected pages, but given that many are COI requests, I would hope that it would be reasonably experienced editors who undertake the request. In addition, I posted here because the cat is list on {{Admin dashboard}} so my guess is that actions are more apt to be seen by admins than others. Is this cat listed anywhere else? How would an editor know about it other than through the admin dashboard? Is there is a better place for this discussion (Village Pump?) I'll be happy to pick it up there.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The semi-protected backlog was almost up to 80 at one point a few weeks ago too. I often go through the full (requesting protection lowered if I think I can answer it or posting comments if I think it will help), template, and semi protected queues. I had forgotten all about the COI queue, and currently Jackmcbarn's script doesn't work on those (as far as I know). I'll see if I can burn down the log some in the next day or two. Quite often they can be declined as lacking RS or being an unclear request. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 20:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

My script currently doesn't support COI requests, but I'll add support for it soon (probably today or tomorrow). Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, upon looking closer, the COI templates are significantly more complex than the other edit request templates. My script won't work with these without a lot of extra complexity. This will probably be a longer-term project once I get my code in a more modular form. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jack, wouldn't it be easier to integrate the COI template into the other edit request template (this is where the "unprotected" option I was suggesting earlier comes into play) than to bulk out the script that much to accommodate a different template (which should probably be consistent with the other three (well, one technically) anyway)? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That was my original idea, but Mr. Stradivarius said it would be a bad idea (and he does make a good point). Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• It would be best to keep the template at the protection level it was originally detected as, so that requests still make sense if the protection level changes., I'm not suggesting changing the level from what it was detected as, I'm suggesting that it could originally be detected as unprotected if it is just a COI request. COI edit requests tend to stick around for a long time without being answered, and I'm suggesting it is partly because they can be such a pain to answer, especially doing it manually (which is why the semi-protected queue hit 80 before I cleaned it out using Jack's script). They also require a bit more research to come up with reliable sources to make the requested changes because requesters often do not include (for whatever reason) appropriate WP:RS. and most often the editor just forgot to fill in the page name in the template, and this is one use case for what Gerrit:116482 via Bugzilla:12853 is suppose to help fix (by automatically filling in the page name from whatever page the "submit an edit request" button was clicked on). Not sure if there's anything we can do about that, short of updating the preload text code in MediaWiki to take a "page" parameter., see previous comment. I'd prefer keeping things simple here. How about just using the same code for all answered edit requests?, looks like Mr. Stradivarius agrees that COI request template should be merged in with all of the other edit requests, but I suppose I could be misreading. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested

Is there an uninvolved admin that could volunteer to close Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Merger Proposal with 2014 Crimean Crisis when need be? The situation remains controversial and there are some editors with strong opinions one way or another. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Fuck

On 1st March, "Today's Featured Article" was Fuck_(film).

Before it appeared, there was considerable discussion on various pages about whether or not it was OK for the amin page to feature something called "Fuck".

Consensus agreed it was OK, and it was on the main page for a day; the world did not end.

But now, the main page says;

"Recently featured: Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) – Fakih Usman – F★CK"

The article is not called F★CK. The film is not called F★CK. It is called Fuck.

I noticed this error about 6 hours ago, and reported it on Talk:Main_Page#Today.27s_Featured_Article.

The only response has been from admin Jayron32 (talk · contribs), who has said we need a 7-day discussion to agree the change.

Clearly, he knows that in 7 days it will not matter, because it'll only be on the main page for another day or so.

So it sounds like a "supervote".

TL;DR - I requested that admins fix the incorrect spelling of the recently featured article, viz. change "F★CK" to "Fuck". 6 hours ago. An admin has refused, and so far no others have stepped in to fix the problem. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not worth the trouble. It's been like this for two days already, and will be gone soon enough. Just forget about it. Not worth hassling somebody about something so trivial. Jehochman ^Talk 03:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• The title of the film is F★ck according to the movie poster itself. The reason the article is on Fuck (film) is for accessibility reasons and technical limitations with screen readers and some mobile devices. I hope this clears it up for you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 03:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't; read the first para of the article. 88.104.30.86 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)