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. 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 three 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.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 25 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 79 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 60 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 57 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 56 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 56 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 53 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 43 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 40 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 32 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 31 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede

(Initiated 26 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPath^talk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	9	26	0	35
TfD	0	0	10	0	10
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	2	0	2
RfD	0	3	29	0	32
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

(Initiated 65 days ago on 30 March 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 62 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 61 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 57 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 57 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 57 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 56 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 56 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 55 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 55 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 52 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 51 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 50 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 49 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 46 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#TotalMedia Theatre

(Initiated 46 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Ca. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 08:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 46 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 40 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 39 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 39 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 38 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 38 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 37 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 36 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 34 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 28 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 27 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 25 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 76 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 48 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 32 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 20 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York#Merge proposal

(Initiated 3 days ago on 30 May 2024) Commentators are starting to ask for a speedy close. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2024 (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" [1] 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)

Whether it's two sentences or two hundred, WP:UNDUE is irrelevant if the actual weight is zero. --Calton | Talk 21:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure No flaws I can see in the process -- other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- and the correct decision to boot. --Calton | Talk 21:22, 12 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 [2]. 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 [3], 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)
• User:IjonTichyIjonTichy would you a accept a 1 strike and an indeffed for any infractions for a period of 1 year as an acceptable condition? Irondome (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• As I read it, the penalty for ban-breaking would be an indefinite block for a year — please clarify so I can understand your actual meaning. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Certainly. I just proposed that IjTIjT be allowed to edit the ZG article but 1 infraction in a probationary period of 1 yr would mean an subject indeff, with no appeal. If the user is that committed to the article, then they can be gardener, making sure of its stability, helping to protect against vandalism, etc. I am also hearing colleague Guy (Help!) s comments below. Just thinking it would be kinder to give IjTIjT a quick decision. I of course defer to wiser heads on this. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC) 14:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is just a bad idea. We already know what the user's personal knowledge etc. means in context, it means a lot of original research and special pleading. There's no obvious pressing need for the input of someone with a history like IjonTichy's. All we're doing is imposing another period where independent editors have to watch every edit, and it's very likely that a block will be required sooner rather than later, with the additional drama that will involve. I don't think it is kind to hold out the hope that this user can return to a subject on which their input has in the past been judged profoundly unhelpful, on the basis that they think their input will suddenly be helpful instead. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• No. The topic ban was established for a good reason, and there would need to be a good reason to remove it. Would anyone wanting to make an offer please first examine the topic and the previous discussions, then indicate how promotion of The Zeitgeist Movement would benefit the encyclopedia. The most worrying part of issues like this is that people will learn how to push their favored positions without crossing obvious lines that would lead to sanctions. How much work should be dropped on the the couple of volunteers willing to monitor the relevant articles? The above proposal of "1 infraction in a probationary period of 1 yr would mean an subject indeff, with no appeal" is not possible as there is never "no appeal", and there is no definition of "infraction"—perpetual boosterism leads to puffery, but no single diff can be shown as an "infraction". Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 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)

Well, that's a useful tip, Nyttend, though it's not really what I was asking about. I think I'm done with this one now – thanks for all the feedback, including Guy below.  —SMALLJIM  20:16, 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)

My 2 Pence: I prefer to hold AFC submissions to a higher standard for the simple reason that if AFC doesn't keep most of the junk from entering mainspace, then the next in line would be NPP or AFD. When I catch a AFC submission that has been copy/pasted from AFC space (i.e. not promoted by an editor in good standing) I redirect the applicable AFC page to the mainspace page, strip the mainspace article of any AFC identifiers it had (since it was never promoted by us), and wash my hands of it. Recalling a gaming of the intentions of the deletion process and AFC by a certain administrator by accepting patently incorrect submissions only to turn around and immediately speedy them because they were now in articlespace and articlespace has higher standards than what is permissiable in AFC space, I see these rogue editors self promotions as their rejection of the umbrella of AFC in favor of any random tag bomber or deletion junkie to come in and rip the submission apart. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 11 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. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] 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)

• User:Ihardlythinkso Two things I'd like from you: 1) diff's pointing to what you considered to be PA's by MaxBrowne (after all, I forced him to go digging :-) ), and 2) a damned good explanation as to your pretty nasty personal attack on Bushranger, with a perhaps good reason why you shouldn't be blocked for that right now DP 19:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The diffs are no problem. (I don't know why you just don't go to the ANI however, and search on "MaxBrowne" and "narcissist"?) Regarding level of nasty, I don't understand how he as admin can reinforce the PA at my Talk via his "that's no PA, that's just calling a spade a spade", and then how anything I have said tops that on your scale of nastiness. (How is it that an admin can get by with that, and that you've overlooked it even though has been brought to your attention too?) If this website wants to be so abusive as to excuse and overlook an admin from reinforcing a clear and vicious PA, and block the victim for objecting to the craziness of principle going on, ... then I don't know what to tell you Panda. I'll produce those diffs presently. (Again, they are very easy to find. Why is this so difficult, like a court of law? When clearly there are no jurisprudence or even consistency or even fundamental fairness, here. This thread was about an interaction ban request presented by the OP. I was already warned by admin The ed17 for comments re Bushranger. What is it that you would achieve by a block at this point, something preventative?) I've brought up the issue of Bushranger's reinforcement of the PA to four admins now, including you, and have gotten no reply. (Just two threats, one insult, and one nothing.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What, you can't tell that I'm trying to give both sides the same leeway here? You know full well that the OP's actions are also fully subject to scrutiny when they file at AN/ANI. Let's try some equality here, shall we? DP 20:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. (I did not bring this AN, the OP brought it to request an interaction ban. I have no interest or need to interact with the OP at all, he has been levying constant attacks and insults. I have no agenda with this AN, and I have no request here, and I certainly have no interest or cause to examine or continue any dispute on any basis with the OP.) I've simply brought up the obvious regarding a PA issued repeatedly against me, by the OP and Bushranger reinforcement of same, and now even you can see Northern has reinforced in his own way. No editor should have to be the target of such PAs, otherwise PA means nothing and is a joke. The fact that an admin has reinforced the PA at my Talk, is the more disturbing to me, not only for the PA itself, but that it comes behind the force of the block bat, and is wholly inconsistent with expectations at WP:ADMINACCT. (Whereas I don't have same/similar expectations of professional conduct from a reg user like the OP.) The fact that you are an admin, Panda, and I've gotten no responses from three other admins on the matter, puts me in a position to ask what is going on? Yet, it wasn't my intention or need to morph this AN outside its original purpose, and I'm sorry if my comments lead you to think that. (I'm simply talking to you about it because you are here, on an unrelated matter. Because I have gotten no answers as mentioned.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyway (to be responsive what you asked for):

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

So can we clarify this here, it's only in the first where you're called a narcissist, and the rest he's explaining as per your request what he meant by it ... you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying the one, I'm just trying to gain perspective here based on YOUR comments which seem to have led to HIS comments, which has now led to additional comments by YOU. Am I getting this correct overall? I'm concerned that your reaction is to insult first, then come across surprised and angry when you get insulted back. As much as I say "someone else's incivility may explain yours, but it will never excuse it, the links shown by both parties so far show that you're regularly the alpha AND the omega in a situation ... and although there's occasionally a gamma and a mu, you're often both cause AND effect. If you start it and someone else responds, that's considered baiting, which ArbComm has already considered to be a significant "evil"...am I being unfair in this analysis? DP 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

as per your request what he meant by it. I never made any such request, nor would I. you can hardly consider being called a "narcissist" to be a major personal attack? I do. On a scale of 1 to 10, it's a 0.75. "Asshole", "dickface", MF's favourite C-word ... those are right up at the top. I disagree. YOUR comments which seem to have led to HIS comments. That PA at the ANI was unprovoked. I had no recent interactions with the OP prior, in fact considered that we had parted ways much earlier, and I wanted no contact with him, nor did I make any. your reaction is to insult first, then come across surprised and angry when you get insulted back. Again, that PA was unprovoked. And beyond that PA, going through past exchanges, you will see the exact opposite of what you have described. (I've never, ever, insulted the OP unless it was a provoked response where he initiated with incivilities or insults. [And I stand behind saying so. But I doubt this is a forum to go through ancient exchanges to examine to prove or disprove. But I'm perfectly happy to do that at my Talk or in a dedicated subpage with you, or whomever.]) p.s. The PA was equivalent to asserting an editor is "classic paranoid" or "classic bi-polar". Those are personal -- about a person, slamming their mental health. "Asshole" is just an expression someone is pissed at someone for something said. I think these differences are obvious and don't need my explain. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

at least 8 times the previous week you dropped my name into conflicts that had nothing to do with me. So drop the "unprovoked" bullshit. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No BS. I fail to see how your PA at the ANI was provoked. (I don't see any provoking diff from you for said PA.) Also, you should redact the PA and your reinforcing comments too. (So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade".) There wasn't contact between us any time recent prior to the ANI. Also you've been continually insisting that reference to your username (and even no reference to your username but any link to any post by you) in any context or discussion, constitutes "personal attack". You've demonstrated more than once as already shown, how you have erupted with both unnecessary ABF personalizations, and imaginings of self-persecution, to posts I've made at article Talks re subjects I happen to care something about, when you are also involved with the subject matter. [17] [18] You also confessed at the ANI My patience with this editor is exhausted. which I presume was to prepare anyone reading how you might fly off the handle in anger and irrationality. What you don't understand is that I have at least equal or twice as many grievances about you and your behaviors (valid ones, not imagined ones), but the difference is, I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional, instead of what you do in displays of obvious hatred and irrational rage, and having fun issuing vicious PA and even expounding on why you think you are "qualified" to make such PA at the ANI, and suggesting that since I objected to said PA, it means the PA "stings" and therefore "must be true". Extremely shameful behavior. (It'd be hard to come up with something more "personally derogatory about a contributor" -- go read WP:Personal attack.) But you won't see me open any noticeboard complaint about it. (The Bushranger, on the otherhand, has WP:ADMINACCT standard of behavior expectations per his role as administrator, so, that is importantly different.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"No BS. I fail to see how your PA at the ANI was provoked. (I don't see any provoking diff from you for said PA.)". Clearly you fail to see that dragging people's names into conflicts that have nothing to do with them is thoroughly objectionable behaviour. You have continued to do this even in this very discussion.
"Also, you should redact the PA and your reinforcing comments too. (So should User:The Bushranger redact what was equivalent to the same PA when he stated at my user Talk that your PA wasn't a PA but rather "calling a spade a spade".) ". Subsequent events have only reinforced my impression of your behaviour. And there you go dragging other people into the discussion again with respect to The Bushranger.
"There wasn't contact between us any time recent prior to the ANI. ". So why bring my name up 8 times in a week?
"Also you've been continually insisting that reference to your username ( and even no reference to your username but any link to any post by you) in any context or discussion, constitutes "personal attack". " Show me one single diff where I have said that. What, you can't? Then stop lying about me.
"You've demonstrated more than once as already shown, how you have erupted with both unnecessary ABF personalizations, and imaginings of self-persecution, to posts I've made at article Talks re subjects I happen to care something about, when you are also involved with the subject matter. ". I apologised and struck the comment. Something I've never seen you do, ever. That's old stuff and I don't see how it's relevant, except as a convenient stick for you to beat me with.
"You also confessed at the ANI My patience with this editor is exhausted. which I presume was to prepare anyone reading how you might fly off the handle in anger and irrationality." You "presume" incorrectly, and that is not a "confession" but a statement. My patience with you is indeed exhausted. I wish to end all interaction with you, and especially your mentions of me in contexts where I am uninvolved.
"What you don't understand is that I have at least equal or twice as many grievances about you and your behaviors (valid ones, not imagined ones)," Then open a RFCU or ANI, or shut up.
" but the difference is, I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional," such as this one?
" instead of what you do in displays of obvious hatred and irrational rage, " I have no hatred for you, only contempt. I pay no mind to you whatsoever when I'm not on wikipedia.
"and having fun issuing vicious PA and even expounding on why you think you are "qualified" to make such PA at the ANI, and suggesting that since I objected to said PA, it means the PA "stings" and therefore "must be true". " Where did I say "must be true"? If you're going to attribute quotes to people and even put them in quotation marks, you'd better be damn sure that the quote is exact. Otherwise, you are simply lying.
"Extremely shameful behavior." I consider deliberately misrepresenting people rather shameful. I also consider dragging people's names through the mud in contexts where they are not involved shameful.
"(It'd be hard to come up with something more "personally derogatory about a contributor" -- go read WP:Personal attack.)" I can think of many things more personally derogatory. And you seem to think that the policy you just linked to doesn't apply to you.
"But you won't see me open any noticeboard complaint about it. " That's what those notice boards are for. I suspect the reason you don't open threads there is because you know your own behaviour will come under scrutiny too.
"(The Bushranger, on the otherhand, has WP:ADMINACCT standard of behavior expectations per his role as administrator, so, that is importantly different.) " Again you drag an uninvolved party into the discussion. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Your PA at the ANI was unprovoked. You didn't offer the/a provoking diff. Mentioning your username in a discussion in context does not jusfity making the PA you did. (You seem to think different. You are very wrong.) // "Bringing your name up" does not equate to personally attacking you. Show me one single diff where I have said that. What, you can't? Then stop lying about me. "Likewise about the "don't post to my attention" thing; that includes posts like this Would be good if we could just stay out of each other's way. Shut up about me and I'll shut up about you, deal? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)" As explained at the ANI, that thread with Drmies was not "about you". If you read NPA it says comment on content not on contributors. The dialogue with Drmies was about competing ways of responding to a sock, pros and cons. The fact that you fictionalized my post into something personal ("about you") is attempting to transform a discussion into a personal attack, and that is dishonest. // I apologised and struck the comment. Said apology was for other editors, not me. You seem to feel perfectly justified in abusing me without apology. At the ANI opened by Mann jess, and in this AN. That's old stuff and I don't see how it's relevant It's the same behavior of you justifying abusing me. So relevant. // My patience with you is indeed exhausted You should explain the significance of said "statement". (What it means re translation into posts on the Wikipedia -- the only thing editors do on this site.) // Then [...], or shut up. Again, you've imagined and accused over and over again of personal offenses where there are none. // I have no hatred for you, only contempt. I really don't care. And splitting hairs "hatred" vs. "contempt" is irrelevant for purpose of this thread, as is what you do or don't do off-wiki time. It does not justify the PA you made at the ANI, and you should redact it, as already told you. // Where did I say "must be true"? You're playing with words, that paraphrase is exactly what you were trying to convey: If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. [...] MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC) // The other stuff is just your personal soapboxing/insulting opinions that I don't care to get in the mud with you by commenting on. Take care, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Clarification (your diff shows me I confused you): When I wrote "I've intentionally just avoided you and endeavored to keep posts impersonal and professional", that was regarding posts at Talks on subject matters where you might potentially respond. (And not regarding user Quale or any other user.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've already explained things w.r.t. my involvement multiple times at the ANI that sparked this whole brouhaha, so I won't bother repeating myself since it's been clearly demonstrated it won't be listened to by IHTS. I am, however, rather curious as to where the accusation of being "POV-oriented" came from, as I have no clue where it came from or how it relates to this fracas - as it is it strikes me as another case of IHTS making up something out of whole cloth about an editor he's decided he dislikes, as with the "you were busy" comments at the ANI. I, personally, don't see a need for an IBAN on my account - I've been (as has been noted) not interacting with IHTS anyway, and when it comes to his repeatedly trying to throw mud at me, that's water off a ducks' back, as well as reflecting on the mud-slinger for making unsubstantiated personal attacks (the same thing he's so quick to accuse others of, oddly). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• With respect, the majority of this thread is irrelevant to my request for an interaction ban. If the admins believe I am partially responsible for this state of affairs... fine, if you say so. I'm sorry that I don't respond well to the level of hostility and aggression displayed by IHTS; please excuse my lack of people skills. Now please impose an interaction ban on this editor so I can edit wikipedia without being under constant attack. I am willing to abide by the same conditions. Thanks. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Addendum: I have no interest in "argumentum ad playgroundium", i.e. "he started it", "it's his fault" etc etc. I just want this editor to leave me alone, and I don't believe he will do so unless such a directive is imposed on him. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Robsinden actions

Robsinden keeps reverting people at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates in the WP:BIDIRECTIONAL section despite many disagreeing opinions and then changing templates based on his view of what WP:BIDIRECTIONAL means. He has also been misreading consensus in discussions and making largescale changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment to add to Tony's comment, I will note the it was also Robsinden who made the edit that created WP:BIDIRECTIONAL in it present form (and the all caps shortcut also) and has since been enforcing what appears to be a rule he created. He's also been prone to being rather nasty about it as well. This has been going on for a couple months now. I tangled with him on this thread and here, and I think, in a couple other locations, all on the same general topic. Montanabw^(talk) 03:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem here is that some editors don't seem to understand what navboxes are actually for, namely navigation between related articles, or what "bidirectional" means, and the explanation of WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was lacking (maybe through oversight), in that it only described the process in one direction, thus only describing "monodirectionality". Some editors seem to want to use navboxes as a substitute for lists or articles, promoting their "monodirectional" agenda, which is against the spirit and functionality of navboxes, and against the spirit of "bidirectional" as half-described at the guideline. The point being if you click on a link in a navbox, you would expect to see the same navbox transcluded at the target. There is support for the clarification at the talk page, but opposing editors are only now weighing in, nearly a year after the discussion. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Rob, I have given you plenty of examples of why BIDIRECTIONAL is not really a rule that should be created. Templates that include historical characters such as {{Henriad}} or {{The Last of the Mohicans}} should not be bidirectional in the sense you discuss. I.e., a fictional character like a King of England should not include every template that includes him as a character.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This is start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, not "open a thread on WP:AN" material. NE Ent 10:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent did you write what you meant. It seems ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Request - can an uninvolved administrator please help sort out this situation by taking a look, deciding to move to AN/I, or whatever, because I've had enough! It began weeks when TonyTheTiger opened this conversation on Talk: Ernest Hemingway, more here on my own talkpage, then he moved to Talk:The Sun Also Rises by opening this conversation. We apparently had consensus here, but then he went back to Talk:Ernest Hemingway to this thread. In the meantime, he also opened a thread on Robsinden's page here. There's been edit warring here, here, here - (I might have missed a few - I'm really tired of this). And of course, he opened this AN thread too. Anyway, thanks to whomever can help. Victoria (tk) 20:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that some editors don't seem to understand what wikipedia is actually for Rob. I think it's about time Rob was topic banned from templates.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Rob's actions have been problematic, but to my mind Tony's have been worse - some of his comments at Talk:Ernest Hemingway in particular have been such that, were I not involved in the original discussion, I would have blocked him. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Albania

A strange dispute has been ongoing in Albania page (you can see the talk page, where a number of editors, just refuse to use CIA Factbook data (based on the official Albanian census) for the ethnic data in the country. They still, keep by reverting, OLD data, from sources as back as 1991. As this is a case of edit-warring and refusal to discuss the sources themselves, by the editors, I hereby, request from administrators, to intervene, otherwise, it would be an endless anomaly. Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Apart from a widely established consensus, prior to Balkanian's intervention in the article, a dirsuptive instant reverting obsession apears to be obvious. All sides need to cool down and perform edits after a discussion takes place and I've asked for this article to be semied. Not to mention that Balkanian is also into a wide scale disruptive convassing campaign [[19]][[20]][[21]][[22]][[23]][[24]], calling his co-nationals for some kind of wikiwar.Alexikoua (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Askahrc topic ban violation

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

---

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic-banned from Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In a very blatant attempt to end-run round that, he has opened an arbitration case naming individuals with whom he was in dispute there months ago. This is, pretty obviously, vexatious.

He has also taken to using an alias, "The Cap'n", and notified himnself on his own talk using the alias. WTF?

Vzaak's statement is compelling reading. This user is obsessed with the Sheldrake article, and will not drop the stick. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: Can you give me a link to the TBAN please, I can't find it on WP:EDR or WP:ARBPSEUDO. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair question, it was Barney the barney barney who said he was TBANned, and his lack of present input supports that, but I am having trouble tracking it down myself now you ask. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of factual corrections here, please bear with me. First off, I'd ask Guy and barney_the_barney_barney to stop spreading the falsehood that I have a topic ban. Please research every procedural that I've been involved in. I do not have any topic bans on any subject, and I'm not trying to circumvent any admin. I've been transparent and respectful about the actions I've taken. Second, I've been signing my name as The Cap'n (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC) for several years now, that's nothing new, while I put a notice on my Talk for ease of record-keeping once this is over.

Finally, I'm not "obsessed" with the Sheldrake article. I haven't edited there in months, made a grand total of less than 20 edits and don't endorse MR, Fringe topics or Sheldrake. What I brought up in my AR is nothing to do with WP:FRINGE, but rather that every time I've complained about incivility or hostile editor behavior since I contributed to Sheldrake, the response (paradoxically) has been to accost me with profanity and attempts to block me.

I have no issues with Guy, we've only interacted a few times, but please don't accuse me of transgressions I have not committed; that's exactly what this AR is about in the first place. I've tried talk pages, noticeboards, avoiding any Fringe article and finally AE's to get these editors to stop harassing me, but it hasn't worked. I'd find it the height of irony to block me for filing an AR stating that I've been inappropriately threatened with blocking. The Cap'n (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest that since there isn't a TBAN (the only sanctions I found were the ones I placed after the SPI, see WP:ARBPSEUDO) this discussion would be best placed at WP:A/R/C within the case request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. A TBAN is amply justified, IMO. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would a topic ban be justified when the editor hasn't edited the article in months and "made a grand total of less than 20 edits"? Seems like overkill to me and primarily meant to stop Askahrc from filing AR requests regarding user conduct surrounding this article. If there are problems with civility (and I believe there are), the editor bringing attention to it shouldn't be penalized. And, yes, I'll go check out WP:A/R/C. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the history on their talk page. Long, rambling conspiracist fictions featuring named editors and referencing the Sheldrake article/. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Request for admin attention on ITN

If an admin could please take a moment to assess the consensus on this "In The News" nomination from a few days ago I would appreciate it. For whatever reason (possibly the huge discussion on items nominated shortly after it), the ITN regulars have overlooked it. No special knowledge of ITN is required to assess consensus. If consensus is found in favor of posting, here are the technical instructions. If not, just leave a note saying consensus was not reached/mor eopinions are needed to decide. We could definitely use more admin involvement at ITN, so here a good chance to get involved.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man took care of that one, but this one on Windows XP still needs assessed. Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Heartbleed bug

Has there been any guidance from the Foundation on passwords (both for editors with special privileges and those without)? See this CNN article. I saw this comment at WP:VPT but with no link: "Perhaps an explanation is found on Commons: Wikimedia Foundation servers have been updated since a vulnerability was discovered in the OpenSSL software. As a precaution, all Commons users were forced to log in again using new, secure version of the software. While there is no evidence of any breach of servers or loss of user data, the Wikimedia Foundation recommends that all users change their passwords to ensure maximum safety of their accounts."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Simple, don't change your passwords until you're absolutely certain the server you're on has uploaded the OpenSSL patch to close the Heartbleed security hole. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was wondering if they were going to offer guidance. I changed my password this morning, expect to change again tomorrow. Anyone with advanced bit should change their password, if not everyone, simply because we really have no idea if anything was compromised or not. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Another bot malfunctioning

Well about a month ago, a same issue occurred . Been looking at filter logs and spotted Special:Contributions/10.68.16.31. ///EuroCarGT 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for a short while so we can get this worked out. ---Jayron32 03:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another: Special:Contributions/10.68.16.39. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well 10. addresses will be operating in the internal WMF network, so it will not be a good idea to block, collateral damage is likely. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• ^This. DO NOT BLOCK INTERNAL IP ADDRESSES. You will cause random collateral damage via XFF blocking. Legoktm (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Better to figure out which bots are involved, even if it involves asking a checkuser to help. I've blocked both the bots, and will now unblock the IPs. Risker (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't block a bot when its only malfunction is logged-out editing — this only prevents logged-in editing, after all, and won't affect anything that the bot's doing wrongly. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Said bin Taimur's bed

The only non-mirror reference of his habit keeping his gold under his bed, was this, http://www.geocurrents.info/place/southwest-asia-and-north-africa/oman-a-land-apart which was most likely extracted from Wikipedia. Perhaps a hoax?--The Theosophist (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference was added by an IP who was warned twice for unconstructive editing.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do we do with unsourced statements that are challenged? All together now: we remove them pending a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cindamuse is gone; please protect her user page

I'm sorry to inform Cindamuse has passed away yesterday morning, in Berlin, during the Wikimedia Conference. Please protect her page, per policy. Thanks. Ijon (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Salvio full protected the user page, talk page is open for condolences. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Salvio, and thanks for the response, Dennis Brown. Ijon (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is bad to see any fellow editor pass on, but I really liked Cindy and she was a huge asset here. In passing, she definitely left a void. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We also need a crat to remove the admin rights. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Crats hang at WP:BN. NE Ent 19:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! That is terrible, terrible news. I am shocked to hear this. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• In order to maintain the user page as it was at that time of her passing:
  • could a sysop update the {{User wikipedia/Former administrator}} template to {{User wikipedia/Former administrator|adjective=is a}}?
  • If someone is wiki savvy enough to set the count on the {{User Wikipedian for|... template to the time of her death, that would be good. (I'm going real life for a bit, otherwise I'd be more specific) NE Ent 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The "adjective=is a" doesn't help: the result is This user is a administrator on the English Wikipedia (verify). Having "adjective=is an" wouldn't be good, since it would make it seem that she was still an admin: we don't want the userpage suggesting that people can ask her for administrative help. I can't see anything in the {{User Wikipedian for}} documentation that would permit the counter to remain the same from day to day, instead of increasing. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The This Wikipedian is deceased. Her user page is preserved here in her memory. makes it clear she's not going to provide anyone help. "preserved" implies we leave the page in it's last form (i.e. present tense) -- she's not in the list of administrators nor the admin category, so editors seeking admin help are not going to be directed to her page. NE Ent 01:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume the subst: syntax can be used to capture a snapshot of the userbox? isaacl (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Filter?

This user and his or her socks,

• Naghmehetaati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 13 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
• Naghmehetaati 14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Naghmehetaati12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

does nothing but post long comments in Persian to Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Hassan Rouhani. No response to talk page inquiries. All except N14 are blocked at this point by Bishonen, but would it be possible for a filter to catch large amounts of Persian posted to article (and file) talk pages? The alternative is to long-term semi-protect these two talk pages, since N needs to create new socks in order to post.

BMK (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a filter necessary — it's rather easy to track, rather easy to revert, and rather easy to block. This isn't the kind of thing that sneaks past people, it's not disrupting articles, and the disruption it does on talk pages is easy to remove (just hit Undo if someone else has edited; you don't have to remove it carefully from a page), so the filter I think would be a lot of work for virtually no benefit. If you notice another sock come along, be sure to check Special:Listusers to find any additional usernames that have been registered. Nyttend (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just thought it might be useful per WP:BEANS. BMK (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Adrianne

Can we have some comments at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Original Stories from Real Life? One of Adrianne Wadewitz's articles is going to run on the main page as "Today's featured article" on either the 14th or 26th, but we have 23 hours to find a consensus date. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bug in delete/undelete

Resolved

 – Incorrect venue. Graham87 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• In this edit of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests I found a request to move Jorhat, Assam, India to Jorhat. It proved to need history-merge, to correct a cut-and-paste followed by many edits and then a cut-and-paste back. So I history-merged it. But first I had to lose from Jorhat, Assam, India 5 redirect edits made while the text was in Jorhat, to avoid WP:Parallel histories. Jorhat, Assam, India had about 1800 edits. This involved the usual long-way-round process of deleting all edits, then undeleting all those edits except the 5 redirects, wasting my time and Wikipedia's server's time. And also, when I tried to undelete, up instead came the "search for text" screen, at least 3 times. To avoid that bug I had to undelete Jorhat, Assam, India in several portions, as seen in Jorhat, Assam, India's actions log (at this link). PLEASE can we avoid this long-way-round process and have a way to plainly directly delete a few edits selectively? (This is not the "hide some edits" feature.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Template:Rplyto This is not the right place for this request. The fact that it's impossible to undelete more than a thousand revisions at once is tracked as bug 43911, and the aborted revision move feature is tracked as bug 21312. Also see this discussion on the technical village pump (which you initiated) and this Signpost story. Graham87 08:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)