Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 31 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 25 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 92 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 89 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 89 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:RSN#RfC: The Times of India

(Initiated 46 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 42 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 41 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence

(Initiated 37 days ago on 26 June 2024) RFC has elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 31 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

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

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 22 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	24	0	25
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	73	0	73
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

Other types of closing requests

Talk:MeToo movement#Proposed merge of Weinstein effect into MeToo movement

(Initiated 127 days ago on 28 March 2024) Can somebody close this, frankly, I thought it had been closed by now. Its been at least a week with no new comments. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 22:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 22:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of undefeated mixed martial artists#7 to 10

(Initiated 88 days ago on 6 May 2024) We have reached an impasse and agree that a formal closure would be helpful in determining next steps. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Charcoal feather (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 70 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 67 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 55 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:Move_review/Log/2024 July#ABC News (United States)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done by S Marshall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpbradbury (talk • contribs) 19:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:MAX (Utah Transit Authority)#Requested_move_22_July_2024

(Initiated 0 days ago on 2 August 2024) Consensus reached for either Utah Transit Authority bus rapid transit or UTA bus rapid transit, ready for closure. Nebula3lem123 (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

UK Banknotes

File:Bank Of England10.png and others..

I note the permission needed to be renewed, any takers? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not particularly applicable on copyright grounds, as this is unambiguously fair use according to US copyright law. Do any UK uploaders have reason to fear some sort of prosecution in relationship to this or other images? Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The permission is required because of British anti-counterfieting laws. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, will any UK uploaders potentially be affected? Being an American, I would be able to upload these images without problem, because there's no applicable requirement for me. Is there a UK law prohibiting UK subjects from accessing a website in which such images are displayed without permission, and/or are the uploaders of these images, such as Cloudbound, known to be UK subjects or otherwise subject to these laws? If the answers are "no" for all of them, we need not take the effort. Nyttend (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask a lawyer for a detailed answer. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per below, it should be taken up by WMF Legal. For info, the criminal offence under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, 1981 is "for any person, unless the relevant authority has previously consented in writing, to reproduce on any substance whatsoever, and whether or not on the correct scale, any British currency note or any part of a British currency note." I'd say the uploaders are no longer reproducing the image - I think WMF are now doing that. Citizenship is irrelevant, but I think WMF can feel safe that UK authorities won't be seeking their extradition for trial in the UK (presumably!), and probably wouldn't get it even if they tried. But I would think that WMF wouldn't be keen on even theoretically committing a UK criminal offence. (Where does Jimbo live these days?) As far as readers are concerned, there may be an argument that those in the UK are committing an offence by displaying it on their screens. (I'm guessing). Disclaimer: I'm a UK lawyer but know no more about the law of forgery than the next googler DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think these kinds of questions are why WMF has a legal team. VanIsaac_WS^cont 09:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It's also why WMF has community liasons -- I've asked Maggie Dennis [1] for input. NE Ent 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hi. :) The handling of this (which I'm happy to pass on) may vary depending on what we're asking, so I want to get clarification. Are we looking for information on the impact of UK users on uploading/viewing these? Or for information on Wikimedia Foundation liability as the online service provider for the website being used to host it? (In case of the latter, I suspect that "actual knowledge" plays a part, but can find out.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, probably both those questions. But, in fact, if we just sought a renewal of the annual permission from the Bank of England it would make those questions redundant. This is the relevan BofE webpage and in these guidelines they say to renew you just email the relevant official. I was just about to go ahead and do that (as it seems no one else has done it) and it occurs to me that if the service provider is "reproducing" the image on the web, the request should really come from WMF. But I don't know if that's right or if that's something WMF would do anyway. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, there are serious restrictions on the degree to which the Wikimedia Foundation can involve itself in content creation or curation, so I do not expect this is a request they would issue. Beyond that, if the request expires soon, waiting for legal to do it would probably not be a great idea, it can take some weeks to get a response from legal. (Sometimes, much faster - depends on the complexity of the issue and who has time.) The question of legal liability for users may be addressed through a meta:Wikilegal posting, and I'm happy to ask for it. I can also ask if the Wikimedia Foundation has concerns about its own liability, but I personally suspect that this is the kind of thing that comes up when it comes up. That is, if they receive a takedown notice or other complaint from a content owner, they respond accordingly. Online service providers are limited in liability for what users do with their services. But since I'm not a Wikimedia Foundation attorney, and this is just my assumption, I'm happy to ask. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To be on the safe side, and because it won't hurt, I've re-applied to the Bank of England for continued permission to host the £10 and £50 note images. Cloudbound (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... can I ask that someone reviews the other notes as well? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The other 2 relevant media files being File:Adam smith note.jpg & File:Shakespeare20Lbanknote.jpg specifcally Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say the Adam Smith note is replaceable fair use, and the Shakespeare note should probably include the word specimen across it. If permission is granted, I believe it would cover all Bank of England notes we display. Cloudbound (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bank of England have granted permission, so I have updated the templates for File:Bank Of England10.png and File:New Bank of England £50 note 2011.jpg. Cloudbound (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the above request, the Wikimedia UK office has received a letter from the Bank of England granting permission under Section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 for Wikipedia to display banknote images shown in accordance with conditions 1-4 and 5e. See otrs:7487596 for more details. Regards -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks

Question for you all. I read WP:GB and followed a link or two to meta and elsewhere, but the first seems to be about blocking IPs globally, and the meta page seemed to be under construction. So my relatively simple question is, how do I get an account blocked across all the wikis in the world-wide world? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

You can contact a Steward or request a lock on an account at Meta. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Elockid. So "global lock" is the keyword. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Global blocks are for IP addresses, and global locks are for accounts. --Rschen7754 20:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend cleared that up on the policy page. I'm just a peon, Rschen, not an international sophisticated highway demon like you. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Mr Whoppit

I have started a closure review for Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment.

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 10#Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment, Armbrust (talk · contribs) and Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) disagreed over Armbrust's close.

I have opened this discussion to allow uninvolved editors to review the close.

Discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 10#Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mr Whoppit#Request for comment (initiated 5 February 2014)? The opening poster wrote: Should the article contain the statement "Gar Wood and his brother George also kept teddy bears tied to their raceboat engines or is it inappropriate for this article because it is not related to the subject of this article "Mr. Whoppit"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)  Done Armbrust The Homunculus 10:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) Re-opening this and requesting another opinion. I see the comments on talk: as being 2:2 either way, with no clear consensus. I do not see Armbrust's claim of 3:1 here. Nor do I appreciate his undiscussed reversion and blanking of expanded content on the same theme, nor his reversion and blanking of my comments on talk: (I don't know what part of WP:TPO that falls under). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) It's actually 2:1, Trevj only said that it should be covered, but not that in this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral. Andy Dingley (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post):

  This article has already been attacked for the childish and non-serious nature of teddy bears. This section gives reasonable context that other boat racers (and Gar Wood was one of the most celebrated) would also be seen and photographed with their "toy bears".

  Trevj (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post): "The content seems encyclopedic enough, with the question really being where it should be hosted. Maybe it's WP:UNDUE here and would be more appropriate at Gar Wood.

  TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post):

  The statement is irrelevant to the subject of this article. The subject of this article is a teddy bear mascot called "Mr. Whoppit". The Woods bears appear to be named "Teddy" and "Bruin" [2] There is no indication "whoppit" or "woppit". There is no indication that the teddy bear mascots kept by other racers are in any way related to the subject of this article other than WP:OR.

  NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs) wrote (truncated quote; click link to see entire post):

  Omit ... This article is about one bear. Other bears are off-topic. They belong in a "see also" section if they're notable enough to have their own articles.

  The key question here: Does a sentence to contextualize how other teddy bear mascots existed during mascot Mr Whoppit's time constitute undue weight or a coatrack?

  As the opener of this closure review and the editor who requested closure at WP:ANRFC, I will remain neutral.

  Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• To prevent premature archiving, I have posted timestamps for the next 10 days in the collapsed post. Feel free to remove them when the discussion has run to completion. Template:Do not archive until does not work with ClueBot III (talk · contribs) as I discovered here.

  Timestamps for the next 10 days to prevent premature archiving
  23:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC) 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  Cunard (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Break

Endorse close as is. Rfc is an important protocol in that it provides an "out" to situations where good faith editors are simply deadlocked on their viewpoints. It is important not so much as it provides the "right" or "ideal" answer but that it provides an answer and allows the community to proceed to more useful activities than remaining stuck on a particular issue. Due to the frequently unstructured nature of Rfc discussions, it can be a tedious, time consuming task and, given the current and perennial backlog of Rfc's requiring closure (see the top o' the page), deference should be given to closers: making closing an rfc even more of a hassle is likely to reduce the number of editors willing to close rfcs to the detriment of the encyclopedia. Therefore, an Rfc should only be overturned if one or more the following criteria are met:

• There is evidence of significant prior editorial involvement in the discussion by the closer.
• The close egregiously does not reflect the consensus of the discussion.
• The issue involves WP:BLP or other content of majorly significant importance.

NE Ent 10:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that uninvolved closers should be given deference.

WP:DRVPURPOSE says "Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". Extrapolating this to RfC closes, RfC closure reviews likewise should be permitted "if someone believes the closer of an RfC interpreted the consensus incorrectly".

Andy disagreed with the close, so I brought it here so the community could review it. Paraphrasing S Marshall (talk · contribs) here: "the principle that FairProcess demands that good faith editors have some effective recourse against" RfC closes they disagree with.

I hope this closure review will not cause hassle to Armbrust. I intended it to resolve the disagreement over the close's correctness by seeking feedback from other community members. Cunard (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that in principle it should be possible to review RfC closes if good faith editors are concerned about them. I would not want RfC reviews to become commonplace, and I'm not sure whether the Administrators' Noticeboard is the correct place to do that.—S Marshall T/C 16:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with NE Ent's philosophy on this. I also think there should be an appeals process and that Cunard bringing it here for Andy was reasonable. As to the issue at hand, I only spent 4-5 minutes looking at it, but I'm not seeing any problem that is significant enough to require overturning--I think I'd have closed it with the same result. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close. It was closed after long waiting. No further arguments arrived. Closer's judgement of the discussion was correct. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Although with the small number of participants it was never going to be the strongest consensus I feel that there is a rough consensus there to exclude the information as the arguments to exclude are stronger, especially the WP:SYNTH argument. Dpmuk (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I disagree with the conclusion, but a resolution is better than "no consensus". Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Restore content The sourced content here is relevant to the scope of the article and was no so bulky as to fail WP:UNDUE. We're talking about two sentences here. As they're not in the article at present (and I'd no doubt be threatened again with a block for restoring them), I would ask if those commenting here have actually read them? The point of the additional content is that the article is primarily about the crossover between a sportsman and a mascot, this additional content introduced further context in that two other notable boat racers also had their own similar mascots.

My main concern for the close was the way in which Armbrust went about it. I expanded the content (two other contextual sportsmen rather than one) to address the fair comment that one other was merely coincidence. Armbrust then reverted that, without discussion, and also reverted my comments on the article talk: page. I see reversion of GF talk as something that should almost never be justified. Why was it reverted? Why is Armbrust treating me as a vandal?

This article has also suffered badly from recent trolling. Red Pen is known for deleting anything on the slightest policy-unsupported whim, but there is also sufficient past disagreement between the two of us that any appearance by him on an article where I'm pretty much the only editor cannot credibly be seen as mere happenstance and was instead a deliberate choice by him to start blanking an article by one of his critics. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to semi-protect Bob_Coy for a bit

Pastor Bob Coy (for those not familiar - he pastored a mega church down my way , Calvary Chapel ), stepped down over what is being called "Moral Failings". Some sources in the press are saying a bit more than that, however, their source is someone's blog, so I doubt they'd pass our reliable sources test. May want to semi-protect that article for a bit to head off speculation. So far the associated article Calvary_Chapel_of_Fort_Lauderdale appears to be quiet, but as that was the church he pastored, it might not hurt for semi on that too.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem? This is the official blog of the organization. Ruslik_Zero 19:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not the blog being used as a source, it's | this one , which is not official in anyway. The Sun-Sentinel picked up that blog (with links) and used it as a source. The church's blog says very little about the matter. My concern is that that blog (not the official one) or others like it will be used to fuel speculation about Bob Coy.

(For the record, I don't attend his church, nor am I employed by it. I met him once and that's my only tie to him :) )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pages are not protected per-emptivly, if a problem arises then you may request it be protected. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Also if the Sun-Sentinel is using that blog as its source, it doesn't matter if the source they used passes RS or not, what matters is whether or not the Sun-Sentinel does (and it does). Playing "Sourceception" isn't a rabbit hole we want to go down. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree you Bushranger, except where a living person is concerned. If the Sun-Sentinel or any news organization quotes that blog, it's can't be considered a reliable source and cannot be in that article, as it fails RS and as an extension BLP. Once again, let's semi that article to prevent that from happening, he's a high profile individual and as such, there's going to be individuals that will want to use that (or other unreliable sources) to stir shite up. Semi it for a while, put Pending Changes on it, anything but leave it wide open. That's pretty much S.O.P for high profile individuals that hit the news during controversy.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be getting almost no editing traffic, considering. In my experience, if there were going to be vandalism based on the news, it would have probably happened by now. I'm keeping half an eye on it and am not averse to protecting if there's an uptick in vandalism, but so far I don't think there's a problem. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of a the 'requested move' procedure.

A contributor is seeking to get around the fact that a proposed article [3] is currently a declined AfC (and incidentally a recreation of an article already deleted by a clear consensus at AfD), by making a 'requested move' from AfC space to article mainspace. [4] Since this is clearly a misuse of the requested move procedure, can I ask that an admin close the requested move as null and void. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Please close the move request as out of order. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that the contributor concerned is arguing that the statement "Remember to base arguments on article title policy" in the template rules out objections based on the previous AfD etc. There is also the issue that the AfC has been moved from 'Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Voice to skull' to 'Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull' - which I'm fairly sure isn't a normal procedure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Sort of, I'm still figuring out the paperwork. Never had to do one like this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If @DGG: is around, I wouldn't mind him taking a look. I closed, removed the template and manually removed from the RM main page as being out of process. He knows much more about AFC than I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I see @EdJohnston: already warned him about this, and he might want to know about this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the said contributor. What I am trying to achieve is to move the draft located at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull to the target page Voice to skull, which is currently a redirect page. Please help me find a way. Thanks. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You use the AFC process and submit it. It seems to be getting rejected for the same reason it was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, so my guess is that it won't be created at all. If it isn't notable and is only fringe, there is nothing you can do to get it put in main space. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Password change advisory

FYI: Wikimedia servers were vulnerable to the heartbleed bug, that potentially exposed user passwords and session tokens to attackers (along with the site's cryptographic keys). The servers were patched yesterday and all existing tokens were or will be invalidated (i.e. everyone is being forcibly logged out and will have to log in again). As a precautionary measure, the WMF is recommending that all users change their passwords. Some VPT posters are suggesting this be taken especially seriously by users with advanced permissions (admin and above), which seems about right to me.

I'll add: if you use the same password on more than one site, then change them all, especially any sensitive ones such as finance, email, etc. Use your browser password store, or password manager software to remember multiple passwords across different sites. This bug is very widespread and probably affects multiple sites that you use.

Also, if your browser implements certificate pinning, you may have seen a warning message about the WMF site certificate having changed. The WMF did change the certificates because of the bug, so the change is a good thing. If you didn't get such a warning, don't worry about this. The feature is not yet widely supported.

References:

• http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2014-April/000666.html wikitech-ambassadors email about WMF server status, containing the password change recommendation
• http://heartbleed.com - technical description of the bug
• VP/T thread permalink to current version, live link that may have newer posts but that will go stale after a while.
• media coverage - there is a lot, try a web search.

70.36.142.114 (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lifting of Topic Ban

Here, in August 2012, I was topic banned from The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) topics. And here, in November 2012, I was blocked for one month for WP:DE and violating topic ban. I would like to ask that the topic ban be lifted.

My disruptive behavior leading to the topic ban was due to the fact I was a newbie at that time, and I made several mistakes because I was overly-enthusiastic, clueless newbie. These included e.g.: SPA, OWNERSHIP of the TZM article, inconsistency in assuming good faith, writing too many walls of text, IDHT, etc. More generally, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's philosophy, culture, rules, policies, guidelines, and user-contributed essays, and unfamiliar with the importance of consensus and the theory and practice of the consensus-building process and closely-related issues. I was clueless, and myopic in my view of Wikipedia.

I'm now much more familiar with how Wikipedia works, and I understand in retrospect that my behavior prior to the topic ban was disruptive and the topic ban and the one-month block were justified, productive and beneficial for the encyclopedia. (Especially - but not exclusively - in the 3-4 weeks immediately preceding my topic ban, my behavior was increasingly disruptive to the project and my contributions on the TZM article and article talk page were more distracting to everyone - including myself - than helping to improve the article's content.) I don't blame anyone, I acknowledge I alone am responsible for all my actions, and I take full responsibility for my disruptive actions that resulted in my topic ban and one-month block.

I believe my record from the expiration of the block in December 2012 to date (almost 16 months, if I'm counting correctly) shows that my contributions to article development efforts and discussions are aligned with Wikipedia's culture and Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines. I have edited trouble free after the block, and I have contributed over a wide range of topic areas, without any of the problems that led to my topic ban. I have been receptive to feedback on my behavior and my contributions, and have edited constructively, acknowledging my mistakes. I have asked other editors to offer their perspectives to assist my article development and talk-page discussion efforts on issues in which my experience was somewhat lacking (e.g. Whitelist issues, questions regarding proposed sanctions on an editor I reported for vandalism, etc), and I am comfortable contacting more experienced WP editors to consult over questions/ issues/ challenges I may be facing.

Having contributed significantly to the development of the TZM article (from a stub) prior to the ban, my intention is to offer some perspectives to contribute to the conversations on the article talk page, to help move the discussions forward in the direction of some form of consensus, based on my intimate familiarity with all the secondary and primary references cited in the article, and my knowledge of the history of the article development efforts. My intention is also to resume TZM-related content creation based on citations from reliable sources, which is always what I most enjoy in Wikipedia.

IjonTichy (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to suggest that given the broad scope of the ban, IjonTichy might well be seen as violating it again by posting here, rather than contacting the admin who enacted it, as was clearly laid out when the ban was enacted [5]. As for the suggestion that IjonTichy contributed anything to the development of our problematic article on The Zeitgeist Movement but tendentious editing, interminable walls of text, and a level of disruption rarely surpassed on Wikipedia, I think the evidence is clear enough. But don't take my word for it, see the ANI discussion which led to the ban [6], and note the unanimous support it received. Given the problems we are currently having with TZM supporters trying to remove all negative content from the article, and turn it into promotional puffery, I have to suggest that the last thing we need is more of the same. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

no opinion as to the lifting of the ban, but not an infraction to ask about the lifting of the ban from the community/admins. Thats just rubbing salt into the wound, and clearly allows per WP:BANEX. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, WP:BANEX starts by saying "Unless stated otherwise...". I'd say that the ban notification "stated otherwise" clearly enough - but whatever, the main point is that IjonTichy was unanimously blocked for promotional editing (of the most interminably disruptive kind) in an article which he wishes to return to - and to which he still seems to think he made some sort of positive contribution. His evident failure to understand what 'contributing significantly' to the article would entail (or rather, wouldn't entail) suggests to me that he has failed to understand why he was blocked in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No comment on whether we should lift or retain the ban, but this is not a violation. We need to interpret the BANEX thing very strictly — only in the most egregious cases should a ban appeal be prohibited, and in those cases, it absolutely must be stated specifically "You may not appeal the ban". Locking the door and throwing away the key is occasionally necessarily, but we must never do it without explicit consensus to do it and an explicit statement to the user in question. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalking. Can the editor in question not be put on a 1 year probation, with the provisio that just 1 violation means curtains for keeps? Just a thought. At least it is an apparently sincere statement. The best appeal I have seen actually, in terms of regaining at least some clue. I'm not familiar with the case though. Irondome (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we impose that kind of restriction sometimes. Still no comment on whether or not that would be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks but no thanks. I don't have any objection to asking for a review of the ban just this once, but the request makes it pretty clear that the problem has not gone away and any further editing is likely to result in a swift reinstatement, with, no doubt, attendant drama. The Zeitgeist thing is pretty much dead anyway, there's no pressing need to bring in obvious partisans. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we G6 failed AfCs re-created as articles?

As a question of principle, is it reasonable to speedy delete under WP:G6 ("technical deletions/uncontroversial maintenance") an article that's been failed at Articles for creation which has later been identically created as a mainspace article by the original author(s)? A test case is Amir Malik and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Amir Malik.  —SMALLJIM  18:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to simply choose the criteria that caused it to fail AFC in the first place. –xeno^talk 18:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, yes, but different criteria tend to be applied in the two places. What would we use in this case - A7, G11? There is some credible claim to notability, and it's not exclusively promotional. Yet if we allow it to stand it shows that anyone not getting the result they wanted could easily bypass the AfC process, unless/until a full AfD is started. Hence the question of principle. (I see Jinian has since deleted it under A7/G6 - not sure if they saw this.)  —SMALLJIM  20:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did see this. I had seen this page before and believe that A7 applied. I used G6 as an alternate, meaning to not make a point about this discussion. Jinian (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So, the AFC was blanked by the creator - very obvious CSD criteria, although it was likely rejected at some point as non-notable. The article was A7 - again, very obvious. DP 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In this case, maybe, but I'm looking for comments on the principle of using G6.  —SMALLJIM  21:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say no. Just because something failed at AFC doesn't mean it shouldn't be created. AFC is an optional process and folks shouldn't be forced to follow that path once they start on it. It's really likely that the article will get deleted (by A7, AfD, or whatever else) but you'd need to propose a new criteria (or get consensus on expanding it as you describe). Hobit (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this situation would not count as G6-able. Nothing technical or uncontroversial about it DP 22:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
• The more-or-less accepted criterion for passing AfC is that it would probably stand at AfD. Probably does not mean certainly, and in all cases AfD is the undefintive way of dealing with it. (If an really unacceptable draft that shows no possibilities of improvement is in AfC or elsewhere and it doesn't fit in the General categories of speedy, then MfD if it's worth the trouble. My own feeling is we should be using that more, not necessairly waiting the 6 months till G13 is applicable. )

It's not clear whether A7 ever applies to an accepted draft, on the grounds that someone other than the creator thought it was at least plausible, and the same argument could be made for PROD. Myself, I think some cases are clear enough that I've been using both routes from time to time when I feel reasonably sure. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. If the consensus view is that G6 doesn't apply, that's OK: it was just an idea worth testing. The principle that AfC holds a candidate article to higher standards than the bare CSD criteria, to minimise the possibility of deletion once it has been approved, is sensible of course. But it does leave a large grey area containing those candidates that have failed AfC but which would actually survive as articles in mainspace. This is not only unfair to the good-faith editor (who after doing his/her best accepts the refusal); it also leaves a loophole that can be exploited by those who just ignore the refusal and copy their efforts into mainspace, some of which won't meet WP:N etc and will avoid NPP scrutiny. Is there scope for a bot to flag these for extra scrutiny? By the way the Malik article was re-created again and I deleted it as A7, per the consensus here. I've salted it now.  —SMALLJIM  11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smalljim, you can still get rid of an old AFC easily: just redirect it to the article to which it was eventually converted. No need to delete it. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I do tend to make creative use of CSD for obviously useless AFCs for living people, rather than go through the rather brutal process of debating whether X is actually notable, a term of art we know well and good causes serious offence to those deemed not to make the grade. But it is something I do selectively, and only where I know the failed article is causing an actual (usually non-Wikipedia) problem. AFC should not be indexed, after all. I'd really hope that an obvious A7 would never be copied to mainspace by the AFC team - G11's, however, do slip by, and that's hardly a surprise given the volume of work. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

What is the proper mechanism (if any) for reporting potential violations of interaction bans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Contacting the admin who imposed the original interaction ban would seem a good first step. Maybe they could take it from there. Irondome (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

How do I determine precisely which admin imposed the ban? Would it be whoever posted it to the list of topic bans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be logical, yes. They must have had some involvement. At least they could point you in the right direction. Irondome (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BANEX says, in part:

Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:

...

• Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include:
  • asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once).

Based on the foregoing, I would start by contacting an Administrator who notified you of the IBAN. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I've now asked this question of the admin who posted it on the list of topic bans, and hopefully he can tell me what to do next. Thank you for your help! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries mate. Hopefully the admin can take the issue from here. Hope it gets sorted ok Irondome (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Avario87

An SPI case was recently brought to my attention. Avario (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was blocked in 2007 for uploading copyvios, and returned in 2009 as Avario87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Technically, this would be block evasion, but given that they haven't repeated the same mistakes that got them blocked and probably would have gotten unblocked in 2009 if they had asked for it, I'm inclined to just let this one slide. Any differing opinions? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you King of <3. Very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avario87 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

[above "Thank you..." comment was added by Avario] I'd say no block right now (we're really at a statute-of-limitations point by now), but Avario, you need to be really cautious. I note multiple copyright-infringement warnings at your talk page, and that makes me wonder whether or not you've really understood the concept and or how to comply with legal standards. Since we'll be bending the rules to led you continue to edit, let me suggest that you be given a strict warning to comply with all copyright standards on pain of being (re)blocked on the first or second infraction. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• The end does not justify the means. If Avario wanted to edit again, they were required to submit a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request. They may then have had specific restrictions placed as a condition of unblock. Creating a new account is block evasion, whether or not they have repeated the behaviours. Even WP:OFFER is not a guarantee of unblock - certain conditions still need to be met. I haven't checked, but did the editor even formally link the accounts as per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY? ES&L 13:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Interaction ban request

Per this thread, I formally request an indefinite interaction ban with Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs). He is a serial violator of WP:CIV and WP:NPA with a nasty habit of dragging his "enemies'" names into disputes that have nothing to do with them. We seem to already have an informal understanding that we will not interact; I want this understanding to be formalised so that if this editor continues to snipe at me he will face sanctions. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"One-way" interaction bans do not happen. You do understand that you would never be able to mention him as well, and that you would face the same sanctions as he would were an IBAN enacted? Doc talk 11:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One-way interaction bans do happen actually, but that's not what I'm requesting. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

They don't happen legitimately. Editor X is interchangeable with editor Y. The current example at WP:IBAN is confusing and needs to be clarified. If two editors need to be separated with an IBAN, neither should interact with the other. No one is at more fault than the other. If it's a simple harassment issue, one would simply be blocked for harassment of the other. IBANS are mutual. Doc talk 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So what's this note about then? No matter, two way is fine with me, as long as it gets him out of my wiki life forever. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes: I see the change here. It never used to say that. The level of consensus at the talk page for this policy change based on the discussion is pathetic. It fell through the cracks and no one saw it. BRD. Doc talk 13:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, one-way IBAN's are possible. However, it would need to be shown clearly through diff's that this is preventing current problems. To say "X has a habit of doing something" is not helpful. We need to see recent, serious, and significant evidence to implement any type of IBAN. Note, this could also expand into a discussion of a 2-way IBAN if evidence leads that way ES&L 13:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You want evidence that there is a problem? How about this diff from earlier today where Ihardlythinkso attacks The Bushranger and also throws in a back-handed insult of Dennis Brown. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What does that diff have to with IBANs between Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne???? ES&L 14:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing. Rather, it demonstrates that this is more of a widespread issue and that IHTS still does not understand that this type of behavior is not acceptable. Northern Antarctica ₵ 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we all agree it's not acceptable behaviour, and that's RFC/U material. This discussion is specifically related to an interaction ban between two people. Evidence needs to be shown that the one person is requiring immediate protection from the other party. Overall behaviour, while fine as a level-set and RFC/U, do not establish immediate need ES&L 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Northern Antarctica ₵ 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

OK it was tedious to collect all these diffs but this is more than enough to demonstrate a pattern of behaviour. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Every single one of these was unprovoked. These were arguments/discussions with other editors, some relatively civil, most not, but the common factor is that I had nothing to do with any of them. Nor did the other editors he mentioned. Also, past experience has shown that Ihardlythinkso will not respect an informal request from another editor to cease interaction. For this reason, an admin directive to cease interaction with me is necessary. I'm not asking anything of him that I am not prepared to do myself, i.e. refrain from interacting, linking to his diffs or mentioning him directly or indirectly anywhere on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support one-way IBAN there is enough evidence to support this approach. I would also endorse a 24-hour block of IHTS for his attack on the Bushranger (diff above). This would hopefully discourage IHTS from making further disruptive attacks in the future and therefore would be preventative. Northern Antarctica ₵ 17:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Panda, the OP issued a pretty serious PA directed at me in the ANI, and when questioned about it, repeated it twice and even boasted why he was qualified to make such personal insult. An admin apparently blocked me for responding to the unprovoked PA, and when questioned at my Talk why he would overlook the unprovoked PA that baited my response, he in effect repeated the PA himself by calling it not a PA but "calling a spade a spade". It is not your responsibility, Panda, that these things occurred. But please tell me how am supposed to have any respect whatever for the goings on here, where a user feels complete freedom to throw vicious PAs around, and is protected in doing so by an admin (an admin!) who supports and repeats the PA???? p.s. The thing about Dennis Brown was a little joke (i.e. humor). Dennis has been nice to me recent. Northern apparently has no sense of humor, and is motivated to scrape up anything, anything whatever that does not even concern him, in bad faith, to attack with. This is obvious persistent hostility in action, not to mention misuse of process and people's time/attention. He even opened a bogus RFAR to attack with. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If the Dennis Brown remark was just a joke, great. I was more concerned by your unprovoked and unwarranted attack on the Bushranger, which you did not address above and which was certainly not a joke. Ironically, you were the one who was objecting to being the target of "mud-slinging". If your comments on The Bushranger aren't mud-slinging, I don't know what is. Please explain why anyone should have any respect whatever for the goings on here when you are permitted to insult editors during discussions that do not involve them. Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, instead of getting personal, perhaps you should looking in the mirror and ponder whether or not you're doing yourself any favors. One day, you're going to go one step too far and wind up indeffed. Your departure would a loss for Wikipedia, especially as far as our chess articles are concerned. Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've already explained myself, Northern. And I can't make any sense out of your other comments, to even respond. (And this isn't the venue for it anyway, I don't think. And why are you involved putting your nose in other editors' difficult or broken relationships, anyway? Why don't you mind your own business?! Already many editors that are your friends have tried to coax you out of drama-mills and go write sports articles. Why are you falling back, you are no doubt disappointing them.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

My comments are not hard to understand. If you keep lashing out at others, you're going to wind up blocked. If that happens, our chess articles will suffer for it. Don't lecture me about involving myself in things that don't concern me. The issue of you attacking other users in discussions that they are not involved in is very much my business, mainly because you have done it to me before. Yes, this is the venue for discussing these things (whereas a third-party user talk page is certainly NOT the venue for your attack on The Bushranger). Northern Antarctica ₵ 18:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I don't owe you any explanations or even a discussion, Northern. But if I did entertain a discussion with you (and other users like you, e.g. SummerPhD) I would put the simple question to you how it is with all your professed interest in "civility" that you overlook and apparently excuse the vicious PA against me by the OP, which was repeated at least three times by him, and even attempted to justify it, as well as an admin saying it was justified. In what world do your civility principles become so blatantly hypocritical? (Please don't answer. I really do not want a discussion with you, and especially, not here. You ask me to "look in a mirror and ponder". Well, shoe's on the other foot -- big-time.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't ask questions if you don't want answers. Max Browne, as I recall, called you a 'classic narcissist'. Now, that wasn't very nice (and I never defended it, either). However, a narcissist is basically someone who is in love with himself. Considering that you almost never want to admit that you're wrong and that you fly off the handle at the slightest provocation, it's not hard to see why Max Browne said what he said. Maybe you should have given some thought as to what you do that causes someone to think of you as a narcissist (even if he shouldn't have said it).

Now, why did I overlook it? Perhaps it was because of all the nasty things I've seen you say about others, including me. In effect, you are a bully who can't handle it when other people don't play nice with him. You can dish it (and you do a lot of that), but you can't take it. Someone who dishes it out like you do can't expect a ton of sympathy from all the people they've alienated. Stop acting so superior ("I don't owe you any explanations or even a discussion...") and put your shoe back on.

Also, you just dragged SummerPhD's name into a discussion that does not involve him so you could use him as a negative comparison. What is it going to take for you to realize that you aren't supposed to do that? Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You just proved how hypocritical are your concepts re "civility" -- justifying a vicious PA the way you do based on "he deserved it" or "it's true" or whatever self-serving twisted logic that makes you think you make sense or are consistent. You have zero credibility with arguments like that. If I were you I'd be very embarrassed/ashamed, but you are not. End of dialogue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

If Max Browne's comment was a vicious PA, your comment on The Bushranger was a vicious PA. Deny it if you will, but it's the truth. At any rate, the dialogue between us does not end unless you are willing to avoid talking about me behind my back (i.e. things like what you just did with SummerPhD). If you leave me alone, I'll leave you alone. Further critical commentary on me made by you in a discussion I was not involved in will be considered harrassment. Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)