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.

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 40 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

(Initiated 121 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done --slakr^\ talk / 04:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 94 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)

 Done --slakr^\ talk / 03:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 72 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)
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 71 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 71 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 68 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:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 62 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

(Initiated 53 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 44 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 44 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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

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

(Initiated 46 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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 42 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 39 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	74	97
TfD	0	0	2	1	3
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	10	12	22
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 76 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 72 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 72 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)

 Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 72 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 71 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 67 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 66 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 64 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 55 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 53 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 53 days ago on 26 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 51 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 49 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 42 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)

•  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence

(Initiated 140 days ago on 30 January 2024) This seems to just now be a forum thread about being banned elsewhere or something (in fact I am unsure it has ever been anything but a forum thread). Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the main author of that thread, and I agree with this request. Initially, it was a reply to a Facebook post by Anthroposophists seeking to remove me from Wikipedia. At /r/WikipediaVandalism, the attacks against me were even more vicious. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I had a look at the talk page and could not see what needs closing. I'd suggest deleting/collapsing anything about the dispute, particularly which isn't related to the content of the article, and leave only discussion relevant to improving content of the article. Happy to take input from others, Tom B (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 63 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)

Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed I closed the discussion as currently no consensus to reinstate the press source,Tom B (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 47 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed Closed as no consensus, Tom B (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 27 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 21 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024

(Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed I closed it last night as no consensus to move, Tom B (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fiona Muir-Harvey#Merge Request

(Initiated 20 days ago on 29 May 2024) Some1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done there was consensus to merge and i undertook the merge, Tom B (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 16 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June. 2 !votes in the last 5 days. Discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on 15 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

(Initiated 15 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 14 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Together (coalition)#Requested move 16 June 2024

(Initiated 2 days ago on 16 June 2024) This is a combined merge and move request for two articles. At the very least, consensus seems to have been reached on one of those fronts, (that being to merge L'Europe Ensemble and Together (coalition)), while the rename discussion seems to be at a standstill. There hasn't been any major discussion or back-and-forth in over a day, and I think it would be worthwhile to at least act on the consensus to merge the two articles while leaving the rename discussion open. GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown:  Not done One day is far too short a time to establish consensus, unless a massive pile-on of WP:SNOW occurs - which isn't the case here. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

How long would be reasonable for consensus? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@GlowstoneUnknown: See WP:CON, but for a RM, I would say a minimum of one week. Bear in mind that many editors don't log in every day; some only have time on one day a week. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Doughnuthead

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

User rights for the Education Program extension

Hi! I'm seeking feedback for the configuration of user rights on the revised version of the Education Program extension, which we're hopeful can be deployed in the next few weeks. The user rights configuration will be rearranged to avoid a Wikimedia staff role as bottleneck or control point for the user rights. Please take a look at the proposed configuration and give feedback. The nominal plan would be to have bureaucrats control the "Education Program administrator" flag, which would be the main right for controlling other user rights and administrative features within the new "Education Program:" namespace. Thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(As the signature suggests, I'm now working for WMF. I'm essential the community liaison for the education program, so please feel free to bring related issues and frustrations to me. -Sage)

What administrative action or issue are you asking for? Do you realize that this board is for issues which require administrative review and action, not for general discussion? Simply because you work for the WMF (this is yet unproven) does not mean you can violate policies of the English wikipedia. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is for "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." In other words, issues that you'd like to bring to the notice of administrators as a group. The Education Program extension and its configuration is such an issue, and I don't see how my posting was inappropriate.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, this board is for administrative action, not for you to WP:canvass for support for your pet project. In addition your supposed position within the WMF is still uncertain. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Two points. The first is that the IP above, as well as the main account, have been blocked for WP:SCRUTINY reasons. This was done by other checkusers, but I think it only fair to note this.

  My second point is that I believe it's inappropriate for the WMF to create its own namespace on this project, and further to institute user rights over which this project has no control. This namespace is going to be used only for the administration of WMF-certified education programs. They have their own Outreach wiki to do this, making interwiki links where necessary. I can think of a few possible additional namespaces that this project might want to consider. Having a separate namespace, with its very own special user rights attached to it, for the purpose of administering a WMF program, is very far down the list of "good reasons for creating a new namespace" in my mind. Although this is probably a fait accompli, I will still point out that Wikipedia is not a hosting service, not even for the WMF. I've also commented at the link added by Sage. Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• This does seem a bit odd. As our policies extend to every portion of this site, are we to assume that our existing admins, functionaries, new page patrollers, etc will be expected to do maintenance for this new namespace that has not been approved by the community? Just tacking on a whole new namespace without even asking us first seems like more muscle-flexing by the WMF. Why here? Why not their own wiki that they already have set up, as suggested by Risker? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See update here.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Votes, anyone? Please read!

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

---

I'm posting this here because this is one of Wikipedia's most public pages, and there's not really a general community noticeboard, at least as far as I know. I'm not trying to canvass; what I'm doing is kind of like relisting an AfD discussion and linking to it in a very public place so a consensus can be reached. I'm holding a vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in all of Wikipedia's history, but only one editor has voted in almost a month. See here: Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars. I just want people to vote, that's all. Thank you. ChromaNebula (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to post this over at the village pump. You could also post it over on Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 05:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Non-admin edits to Wikipedia:List of banned users

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

---

For discussion - there is not currently any ban or protection on non-administrator edits to the list of banned users. Obviously much mischief over long term scales could be caused by misinformation there, and its more than usually sensitive to conflict behaviors.

Should we be considering protection at some level? Or is watchlist monitoring "enough"? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would consider watchlist monitoring. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for non-admins to edit that page. Full protect it. Administrators can update it at the same time as they close the discussion that results in the ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Adminship is only extra tools not any special trust. Why would you full protect a page and encourage such a position? Adminship is no big deal. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would think that it would be an admin only page, although I don't know if there is a hard rule, simply because blocks and ban determination tend to be admin functions, and it is easy to make a good faith mistake. It is about accountability. And IP, quoting Jimbo on "not a big deal" doesn't make it true. This is one of the biggest websites in the world, so there is some responsibility involved and required. Quoting that is very 2002 of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well what is the page? Is it a list of banned users, or is it a place to add whatever thought you want to add about a particular banned user on a particular day? If it's just a list of banned users, then only administrators can close a discussion with that outcome, so their editing the list should be fine. If it's a "let's say bad things about people" place, then why is it there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. First of all, I would like to owe everyone a sincere apology for my unintentional personal attack on the banned users page. I am fully aware of the no personal attack policy, and I believe it was a good faith mistake on my part, and I did not intend to break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. Now, if I would consider either full protection or watchlist monitoring, I think watchlist monitoring may be a necessary measure in this matter, because as User:Dennis Brown pointed out to me, it is probably not really a good page for a non-admin to edit only because of the potential ramifications of an improper addition to this page, and that would be a very easy mistake to make. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• I only think this list should be kept in orderly fashion. If user X was banned, there should be an official closing of the banning discussion by an uninvolved administrator. Then, a simple notice that user X was banned, with appropriate links and conclusion made by the closing administrator should be included in the list. Such records would be fully consistent with policy. But most records in the list are just fine, so I do not see any pressing problems out there. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• This looks like a solution in search of a problem. In the absence of any history of serious vandalism or mischief on the page, having a number of admins and long-term editors add it to their watchlist would seem to be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• There's no reason to restrict this page to admins-only. It's just like any other page. Maybe more admins need to watch it. Keep the permanent semi-protection if you must, and don't restrict it from the other good-faith editors who help out the comparatively miniscule admin force (who can't be everywhere all the time). Doc talk 06:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Doc9871, there is no reason to restrict the page to administrator only. It's a list of banned editors, something that can be easily verified by checking the blocked user and adjusting the page for administrators and non-administrators alike. In fact, as it seems the number of active administrators is slowly growing smaller, this actually compounds the problem. Regards, — Moe ε 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I see no reason to restrict ths to admins only. I do think that semi protection is necessary here, but not full. In fact, there is one reason for non-admins to edit this, and that is to remove reports of expired bans. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• The proper response to an erroneous edit is to revert it. The page exists to provide a certain link location to actual ban statements, no significant harm comes from a transiently incorrect entry. Given the shortage of active admins, we should only require admins to do actual admin functions, not gnome stuff. Nobody Ent 16:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• If this came through as a request at WP:RFPP (which is currently backlogged by the way) my reaction would be Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.. Semi seems warranted, but this one minor incident, for which the user has already apologized, does not warrant full indef protection. Disruption would have to be pretty severe to justify that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm surprised that this isn't protected. Why would non-admins need to edit this list? It's not like the page has a backlog.—Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because of the reasons I mentioned in the remark immediately preceeding yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• There should absolutely not be any restrictions againt non-admins editing that page. Non-admins should be allowed to edit any page at Wikipedia and do any task which does not require the admin tools. That is, unless it needs to be deleted, protected, or blocked, there is no compelling reason to arbitrarily exclude non-admins from any task. --Jayron32 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Help needed

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

---

Rather than post this at several noticeboards, I was wondering if an administrator could help with the vandalism described at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Inappropriate moves by tag-teaming new editors. A number of editors, it seems have been doing some tag-team vandalism. At least, it looks like vandalism - it involves page moves and creating purposely ambiguous categories, in an effort to make University of Newcastle (Australia) take precedence over University of Newcastle (disambiguation). The cut and paste moves have been reverted, but I was wondering if anyone could do a speedy merge of the recently created Category:University of Newcastle into Category:University of Newcastle (Australia). I ask this here because there is no such thing as a speedy merge at WP:CFD (only speedy moves), and a category created by vandals shouldn't have to go through a long process in order to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is also a thread on this at ANI. --Rschen7754 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan

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

---

I'd like to notify the board that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, it appears tempers over this issue are heated on all sides. If any admins are willing to keep an eye on the RfC/U, it might be helpful. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC) (I am involved in the RfC)

I see it .. I just don't know where to even start. — Ched :  ?  01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Where else has this been cross-posted? Forum-shopping? Secretlondon (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Forum shopping is going to different areas hoping for a different result. This was pointing editors to the RFC/U, I wouldn't consider that forum shopping. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well he's promoted it on AN too, where it got quickly closed. Secretlondon (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I thought you were talking about the notification, not the discussion. Ryan Vesey 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Extraneous, yes. Bad-faith, definitely no. Both the notice here and the notice at WP:ANI are basically "Hey, this RFCU has been started; please offer your input", and because both WP:AN and WP:ANI are read by people who hold all points of view on this RFCU, he's clearly not trying to stack the deck in favor of one position. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been informed that a link to the RFC/U is automatically transcluded onto this page and AN/I so the notification was extraneous after all. Apologies for that. I'll know better next time (though hopefully there won't need to be a "next time"). Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: More than ten editors were notified of the RfC/U by Prioryman on the basis that they had disputes with YRC. In addition to noticeboard posts about it. The RfC/U rules require they be about a single dispute and I suggested at the RfC/U that notifiying a large number of people looks a great deal like vote-stacking at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that I notified them "on the basis that they had disputes with YRC" is false. I have already told you here that I notified only those whom I mentioned in my opening statement, precisely as the third bullet of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification requires, and solely so that they could review and correct any misrepresentation of their involvement. Numerous other editors have already stated that there was no canvassing and the certification comments make it clear that the dispute concerns a long-running pattern of behaviour, not a single incident. You know all of this perfectly well and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we close this here and confine the dispute(s) to the RfC itself at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/StuRat

 – no ination declined, page deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to nominate StuRat, as I am impressed with his answers. but, he hasn't responded to this nomination (And, his contributions show that he has seen notification on talk page) Therefore I am asking any admin to delete that page. Thank you. GiantBluePanda (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've asked on his talk page for him to explicitly accept or decline the nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Java code to stop me from logging in

Hello. Please, place in the java code that stops me from logging in for at least two years. I want to go on a break.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that such a thing exists. However there are a few admins, including myself, who are willing to consider self-requested blocks. My conditions for doing so are rather limited, you can see them at User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that Kazemita1 meant to say "javascript", there is a temporary wikibreak enforcing script that can be placed in one's common.js here. →Σσς. 22:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed what I meant. Please, go ahead and do so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy your break, Kazemita1. Jafeluv (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin actions at RPP and RFPERM

Do we generally allow editors who are not admins to decline requests at RPP and RFPERM? --Rschen7754 05:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Define "allow". Are they making decisions that the average "reasonable person" would not? That is, if an admin had made the exact same action, would you object? If you wouldn't, then you have no basis to object when a non-admin does it. If you would object had an admin made the decline, then the basis for the objection is that the objection is faulty, not the status of who made it. Either way, it doesn't matter who commits the action: if it is a good action it should stand regardless of who made it, and bad actions should be likewise dealt with regardless of who made them. Since declined requests don't need the tools to enact, I see no problem in principle with any long-standing editor with a good standing in the community declining them. --Jayron32 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion last week about declining unblock requests: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Unblock requests being handled by non-administrators. The consensus was that non-admins should not be declining unblock requests to ensure that users are given a "fair hearing." --Rschen7754 05:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. I agree that non-admins should not be handling unblock requests, but that is because of the nature of the block itself. Our default should always be "everyone can do it", and we should only careful restrict non-admins from doing tasks on a careful basis. I agree with the crux of that discussion, as it applies specifically and only to that situation, because of what a "Block" is; unlike deletion and protection, the damage done by a poorly handled block (and that includes a poorly handled unblock request) are permanent. The social problems of a block go way beyond a minor inconvenience, messing up a block one time will cause irrevocable damage to the relationships between the blocked person and the encyclopedia at large. Not protecting a page that maybe should have been protected is not an issue. If a few more vandalisms show up, it can always be protected later. A declined unblock request is like a second door slammed in an editors face. Not all mistakes are equal. I don't really have any problem with a non-admin declining a protection request as I would with an unblock request. So the fact that the community made that decision doesn't surpise me, and I endorse it. However, I would vehemently oppose any further attempts to imply that admins get special access to most tasks that a non-admin could do; especially where the penalty for being wrong is trivial. Let's rephrase this. Show us a diff or diffs where you believe a specific person has made errors in judgement. If you can't, this isn't a problem. If you can, lets deal with that one person. There's no need to set arbitrary rules just to have them. --Jayron32 06:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The arguements are precisely the same: since a non-admin cannot protect a page or authorize a new permission, they should not be declining one either. As was said in the previous discussion "Never take a 'No' from someone who is not authorized to give a 'Yes'." Were I turned down for either of these by a non-admin, I would have restored the request immediately, since the closer had no authorization to answer "yes". That's not what we want, we want a close to be a close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

An editor who puts in a good faith request for permission is, IMO, entitled to have his request reviewed and determined by an administrator. Besides, RFPERM is hardly overburdened. T. Canens (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: before I got rather tied up with an aggressive defense, I was soliciting input on WT:RFPERM in order to determine a) non-admin "clerking" requirements, and b) what limitations those "clerks" would be working under. More input from admins would probably be good there. dangerouspanda 11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've recently been working at RFPP after not doing so for quite a while. The new thing I am seeing there is "clerk notes." They will comment on a request but usually don't actually close it. As an admin I am responsible for investigating the need for protection myself so I can't say I find that particualry helpful, but it does no harm either. I would disagree with expanding the concept of non-admin closures to request for permissions or protection. Unlike AFD, most of these are not community discussions where what is needed is a correct interpretation of consensus. These are requests for specific admin actions and admins are vetted by the community based on their perceived ability to make such decisions. It is only fair to the person making the request that a user who is properly vetted in that manner and has the technical ability to grant the request be the one to make the call. That is why have admins in the first place, if it was just a matter of robotically responding to requests based on some formula we woildn't need admins to make these decisions. Hell, we wouldn't even need real people, a bot could do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with T. Canens and Beeblebroz - editors are looking for a review by an administrator and should be given a reponse by an administrator. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Admins are just regular editors with extra tools. If an action can be performed by an editor without additional permissions, the default should always be that they are permitted to perform it. If you request a response from an administrator, and a non-admin gives you the correct response, whats the problem? That said, Unblock requests are different, most other times if you dispute a quasi administrative action by a non-admin, you have a variety of ways to request review, such as raising the issue with them on their talk page, or heading to AN/I. Blocked editors have no such ability, and so its particularly important that they not be on the receiving end of a bad non-admin action. Likewise there is clear consensus that the rules at WP:NAC apply to closes of deletion discussions. But otherwise, until clear consensus to the contrary is developed, the default should remain that no permission is required. If there are specific editors taking bad quasi-admin actions, they should be individually corrected. Monty₈₄₅ 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anyone saying permission is required. I think the point is that the non-admins cannot directly act on the requests so any "commentary" is simply the non-admin spending their volunteer time in an unproductive exercise. I can see the possibility that an admin may overlook something important in a request; at that point input from others would be helpful, from any party. Tiderolls 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of the comments above suggest that a non-admin may not reject certain things, for instance an RFP request. In other words you can't do it without the admin right. I'm disagreeing and saying that be default any editor can. Sorry if there was any confusion from my use of permission instead of userright. Monty₈₄₅ 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests for admin actions should be responded to by persons who can actually fulfill the request and who have been vetted by the community to determine if they have the judgement necessary to make such decisions. anyone can comment on anything they like but they shouldn't present themselves as persons who can actually take action on the request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That said, "anyone can comment" leads to ridiculous comments like "I don't think this person should get it" (with no policy-based argument to follow), or worse ... or engaging a horrifically WP:COI/WP:PROMO editor with a WP:UAA violation over a period of 7 or 8 posts that sometimes just gets ugly. Non-admin comments in those locations need to be properly worked with in order to set expectations, and ensure quality of responses dangerouspanda 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus that someone needs to be able to accept a request to reject it. Any editor can reject a CSD, only an admin can delete. Any editor can perform a WP:NAC keep close at AfD, only an admin can delete. It seems there is consensus in favor of allowing non admins to act in exactly the type of situations you object to. Why is an RFP request different? Also, if anyone shows up and says they don't think someone should get a permission, given how rare that is, it deserves investigation to determine if it is founded, even if the rationale isn't stated. Monty₈₄₅ 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Read NAC again. Note how it specifically says that NACs are only appropriate in cases where there is an unambigous consensus. Requests for page protection are not discussions and adjudicating them does not require a consensus, it requires a proper understanding of the protection policy. Of course any responsible admin will take into account any good faith comments made by other users, but ultimately they are charged with actually making the decision to protect or not. This is because the community has explicitly said it trusts them to do so. The same cannot be said for self-appointed clerks. They may provide some extra detail or insight, but they are not entrusted by the community with the responsibility of making such decisions. We need to get it straight here, what is being asked is if we are going stretch the definition of NAC to include decisions currently not covered by that essay. And it is an essay, not even a guideline, so cotiing it as an excuse to do something not even mentioned there is not going to cut it. If you wish to seek consensus for NA closes in other venues, open a proper RFC on the subject and ask the community, we can't just shoehorn it in based on a few comments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Non-AfD_NACs, where an RFC was held. While it was not formally closed, my reading of the consensus there was that it supported the broad use of NACs. Monty₈₄₅ 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Monty, if you ever raise anything like this again at the Village Pump, this board is the first place you should notify. ANI is for actions, this is for " issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Like non-Admin closures. The closure statement simply asks that the guidelines be clarified. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one that notified AN/I, and generally it should be enough to add an RFC tag, though that one was mentioned on WP:CENT as well. Monty₈₄₅ 06:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there's 2 portions to this... First is the question about mop level activities (Blocking/Unblocking/Page protecting/Permissions/etc.) and the other is users opining on requests that do end up with a mop action. I know I've recently taken to trolling the Category:Requests for unblock for the purpose of trying to cut down on some of the bogus requests that get filed or to help get the appealing user the information they need to make a successful unblock. As such I see it in the same vein of commenting on a WP:AIV or WP:RFPP request, to justify and help the administrator figure out what the community conesnsus is. This has the side benefit of helping me get a feel for the spirit of Wikipedia to ensure that some time in the future when I do decide to make a bid for the mop, my viewpoint won't be that far out of line. I think I removed one "Request for Administrator" template from a blocked user's talk page because it was obvious to me that they were having a tantrum and not willing to work collaboratively. I noted this in my response and waited for anybody else to revert the striking of the template to as to learn, but as far as I know, the action has not been reversed.

TLDR: Admins are busy. Having Gnomes/Clerks scurring around to help is not a bad thing. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at WT: PERM. Non-admins are allowed to help out by confirmed, as many of the requests there do not actually require an admin. There are also a few admins who work in conjunction with non-admins at confirmed. Best, Electric Catfish 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC).

Troll needs a block

Resolved
Resolved  – 31 Hour Vandal Block Hasteur (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC) (no not me  :) This guy he's repeatedly trolled Pinthicket's page with various garbage. He's gotten multiple warnings. He's not listening, so perhaps a block would be in order "....We are all Kosh...."  <-Babylon-5-> 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ivan Gašparovič

Please, protect the article of Ivan Gašparovič, because a noname user (here permanently deletes a sourced text from the article. Without discussion. Thanks forward. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to block both of you, and the reason I chose instead to levy full protection for 24 hours is that the IP, unlike you, was attempting to engage in sustained discussion. It would have helped had you heeded the big bold notice and notified the IP, whose talk page has never been created. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The offending section been removed, and the protected article, as it stands is better for it. However, once the protection is lifted, I assume the section will again be added. What can I do to ensure that changes are not reverted again?89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion to the question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Banner#Re:_Gasparovic_revision 89.173.110.130 (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend

Hi, can you please take a look at User:Neogeolegend? This user has essentially created a nazi shrine, at Portal:Nazi Germany. He's also creating userboxes like Template:User interested in Nazi Germany in main template namespace (not saying it would be okay in user namespace) and has some other unacceptable content on his user page. --rtc (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What content on his homepage is unacceptable? Still reading contributions, but so far seems to be historical interest not advocacy.

If he is advocating somewhere please show us specific diffs. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please take a close look. He is showing an exploding swastika, commenting "this user believes that removing history is destroying history itself". The meaning of this message is clear. The user shows the nazi flag in a userbox, commenting "This user is interested in Nazi Germany." It cannot be tolerated per WP:CIVIL that the nazi flag be shown, and such comments cannot be an excuse. The user has another userbox saying "This user admires Nazi Germany uniforms." Again, the message is as clear. I think any ambiguity that might be in these messages has been purposefully put into them to trick people into believing it is covered by policy, which I think it is clearly not. If you look at the portal, it clearly embraces and excessively uses nazi symbolism, colors, quotes, etc, instead of describing things in an encyclopedic and disassociative manner. Again, the portal purposefully tries to make things look ambiguous by having this anti nazi section, which cannot be any excuse at all for the rest of this propaganda portal. BTW, I'm not sure if he is advocating the nazis per se, rather than merely having an completely uncritical and naive view about them, but I think already making use of this kind of nazi symbolism in this almost obsessive manner, including the advocacy of such symbolism, is clearly disruptive and not WP:CIVIL. --rtc (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between "I am offended by this" and "you must take action". You are clearly offended, and from a personal taste point of view for the sake of argument I agree, but he seems to me more of a historical fan than advocate or booster. Good history, even of offensive things, requires dedicated historians focused on the topic.

I am not saying we won't act, but not without actual cause. Focus on finding that, if it's there. We need an actionable policy or behavior problem to act. Merely being offended is neither. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. There is nothing particularly wrong with having an interest in Nazi Germany — I find it fascinating myself, and we need articles that cover the topic extensively. It's when someone starts professing such an ideology that it becomes something of an issue. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're writing about Nazi Germany, you're doing readers a disservice if you don't include some of the more prominent imagery; intentionally omitting the flag would be one of the best ways to damage the page, and its inclusion is not by itself a violation of WP:CIVIL. There's also a substantial difference between admiring Nazi uniforms and admiring those who commanded their wearers. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)