Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

(Initiated 20 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Preemptively commenting that I have been sick for the past couple of days: not seriously, but enough that I feel like I haven't had the mental energy to give this the attention it deserves. It has not slipped my mind. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.

(Initiated 12 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

(Initiated 10 days ago on 7 September 2024) Restored from archive. Admin closure requested. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Done by StarMississippi. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 107 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:National Rally#RFC: What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

(Initiated 89 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 87 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 72 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

(Initiated 64 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

(Initiated 55 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

(Initiated 43 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPath^talk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

(Initiated 42 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 August 2024)

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

Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

(Initiated 39 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done Nemov. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

(Initiated 38 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

(Initiated 36 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPath^talk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Herrenvolk democracy#RfC Should the Israeli Flag be displayed in the article?

(Initiated 35 days ago on 13 August 2024) Discussion has been open for more than 30 days. I believe the result is pretty clear however am involved and another editor has objected to my interpretation of the consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 32 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

  I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Algeria#RfC on ethnic groups in the infobox

(Initiated 22 days ago on 26 August 2024) Greetings closing admins, I would like to request a closure of RfC discussion of Algeria Algeria RfC discussion as the discussion has stabilized and it is due for closure. --Potymkin (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Potymkin: It's not due for closure, as it's been open for 19 days not 30. The last comment was four days ago, at 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC), so I also don't think that it's stabilised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

okay thank you for your output and also for correcting my form, I apologize for mistakes i made in the template on this form as this is my first time. I have made wrong judgement when I read " 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." I fully trust your judgement that the discussion is not yet ready for closure. the person who started the RfC @Kovcszaln6 said in UserTalk Page " In order to avoid any future trouble (see WP:INVOLVED) I decided that it's best if I don't close the RfC myself. As I have stated, I'd suggest that you request the RfC's closure at WP:RFCL" so what do you recommend I do next ?

Delete the Template and I restate it in 11 days ?

or keep the templete until it ticks 30 days have passed ? Potymkin (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:New South Wales Police Force#RFC - former police officers Rogerson and McNamara crimes in 2014

(Initiated 42 days ago on 6 August 2024) Hello. Could an uninvolved editor please summarise and close this discussion. Thanks Melbguy05 (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:MJ_the_Musical#Request_for_comment

(Initiated 0 days ago on 18 September 2024) This RFC is more than 40 days old with the last vote coming 13 days ago. Could an uninvolved editor close it, please? castorbailey (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	8	23	31
TfD	0	0	1	11	12
MfD	0	0	4	5	9
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	5	32	37
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

(Initiated 68 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

(Initiated 67 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

(Initiated 29 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7#Category:Suicides by carbon monoxide poisoning in Japan

(Initiated 10 days ago on 7 September 2024) I think this is an easy one, both to close and to implement – {{db-xfd}} is your friend for non-admins :D HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6#Category:Technical universities and colleges in Germany

(Initiated 27 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 30#Category:Fictional Bengali Hindus

(Initiated 18 days ago on 30 August 2024) Another easy one :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

(Initiated 286 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

(Initiated 135 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 113 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

@Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 111 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 101 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

(Initiated 79 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

(Initiated 37 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 32 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPath^talk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

(Initiated 23 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

(Initiated 21 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Appeal of community restriction

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

---

Restriction was imposed following this discussion and, per the terms of the restriction, subsequently modified here. The restriction was imposed due to several ANI filings I made about the Article Rescue Squadron and my efforts to re-open an MfD on the project's rescue list. As it stands, the main reason for my actions was that I wanted to have an open discussion about the project and its activities with significant community input. I feel that was largely satisfied with the RfC on the group and a second MfD another editor opened up regarding the list late last year. Under no scenario can I envision myself returning to such noticeboard filings as I feel that, if the project should remain a concern, it will have to be handled in a more managed process such as another RfC or arbitration. Even there I see no present cause for such action as the group has seemed to decline in activity to the point of effectively being a non-issue. So the restriction at this point is moot in my opinion and I would rather not have the black mark.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support removing topic ban NE Ent 01:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Since I weighed in at the original ANI thread, I'll respond here as well. I see no reason to avoid assuming the best or doubt the sincerity of TDA's request. This was over a year ago, and I am usually supportive removing "black marks" and reducing restrictions when an honest attempt is made to work within the rules we have here. I therefor support this removal, and note that the closing admin. in that determination is not currently active. I also note that TDA did approach that closing admin. as well. Also: "per NE Ent". — Ched :  ?  02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Whatever the merits of the original ban proposal it's unavoidable that it was a politically contentious issue, and it's been long enough, and the issues moot enough, that there's no need for any continued restriction. Shadowjams (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do you mean "...ban proposal, it's unavoidable..."? Not trying to be picky; I'm just having a mildly hard time understanding the first part of your sentence. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your punctuation is much better than mine :). The first was politically (wiki politics) charged. Shadowjams (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Mainly because I see no reason to maintain the ban at the present time. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 04:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There have been plenty of folks topic banned on both sides, and things have calmed down appropriately. I see no reason to monkey with success, and a topic ban that a user does not intend to violate is no particular hindrance to their editing. Without a desire to reengage, there is no compelling reason to remove a working restriction. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per (NOT Jclemens) & NE Ent, Ched. No need to keep restrictions that a user does not intend to violate - judge next on their own, not by default. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, there IS a good reason to keep them: users who say they will not go back to the same topic area have, eh, I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises, in my experience. I'll withdraw my oppose if he'll stipulate that I get to block him and/or discretionarily reinstate the topic ban, previous INVOLVEment or not, if he goes back to what I perceive to be battlefield involvement in the topic area. I have no particular reason to think that he will be one of the 50% who make campaign promises they never intend to keep, but if some teeth were put into those campaign promises, I'd be happy to accept them at face value. What says the appellant? Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  ".. I'll give it a generous 50% chance of following through with their promises ..." .. and that is exactly the problem, Jclemens, and exactly why I have not a single bit of confidence in you anymore (I guess that got reflected in the last ArbCom elections), in ArbCom, and actually, in almost all of Wikipedia. Restrictions for the sake of restrictions, restrictions which are just way beyond reasonable, etc. etc., and make sure that they stay, and make sure that they get enforced. But I still hope that other editors have more faith in the editors that make this encyclopedia than in the ones that think that they need to police it (and seen the other !votes here .. I don't think that that hope is completely futile). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yep, I think Jclemens' approach is exactly the wrong one, and is diametrically opposed to the Wikipedia ethos. We should be aiming for minimum sanctions, maximum freedom, and maximum support for our content creators - not authoritarianism and high-security containment based on assuming the worst of people. (But I do have significantly more faith in the current ArbCom than I did in the previous one - I think the last election achieved an overall positive result) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  Boing! said Zebedee, I have lost so much faith in ArbCom over the last couple of years that I can only hope that the 'new generation' will be able to restore some of my faith. As I said, I think my hope is not completely futile (I even saw positive changes in some of the old ArbCom members...). Anyways, lets examine restrictions for what they are supposed to do. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

  The problem isn't restrictions for restrictions' sake, it's that users who have actually gotten to the point of community or arbcom sanctions, as opposed to a spat with a single admin or a 3RR sanction, have already demonstrated inability to behave in a collegial manner. Thus, when lifting them, we're faced with the question of "does this user really get it now, or is he deluded and/or lying?" What so many of those of you who like to second-guess Wikipedia's pale attempts at governance ignore is that often, it is one of the latter issues. I won't list unrelated cases here, but anyone who doesn't understand the problem of recidivism hasn't been paying attention. Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  So your approach is to just assume "once bad, always bad"? I think that's an appalling attitude (and it's part of what got you kicked off ArbCom) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  No, more like once restricted, show me a real reason for removing the restriction. "I promise not to go anywhere near the topic again" isn't a real reason. I've repeatedly voted to lift sanctions as an arbitrator when users demonstrated that the sanctions themselves were actually harming their ability to do encyclopedia-building work. There is no such argument advanced in this case. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I closed the RfC on ARS last summer and at that point I wasn't certain that the topic ban was required. At the time I erred on the side of caution and left it in place. I'm happy that sufficient time has passed and attitudes have changes sufficiently that this topic ban primarily serves as a blot on TDA's record and I would support it being lifted. Worm^TT(talk) 07:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The whole thing was some time ago and it's all settled now, and I see no need for any ongoing topic ban. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Ched and others. I am not even sure this ban was really needed from the beginning. My very best wishes (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support with the specific proviso that TDA will undertake no actions which could conceivably be viewed as "pointy" about the topic in future without incurring the possibility of renewed sanctions. Collect (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• I get the idea of not wanting to have a topic ban over one's head. But I also don't see any advantage to TDA getting involved in ARS issues. Eh, support with the same note as Collect. I think TDA is wise enough to stay away on their own. Hobit (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm all about extending an olive branch to people who have seen the light, however if you get back into deliberately disrupting ARS, then expect the resumption of sanctions and more restrictive sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral Support I have no vested interest either way, but I have no problem with second chances. The twisted one formerly known as balloonman. 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I closed this as rescinded but TDA objected to a condition on the close and argues that I'm involved as I opined on the original restriction. I don't remember doing so but appearances are important so I'm voiding my close and recusing from this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Request closure

Could an uninvolved admin close the appeal? I think there is clear consensus for lifting my restriction without any conditions, and I feel such conditions would basically be new and unnecessary restrictions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

After reading, I agree. If I may editorialize for a moment (without it affecting my close), I think you're probably better off steering clear from shenanigans with respect to the ARS, just in case, but I don't see any consensus that you be formally restricted from anything. The proviso that Collect mentions is close enough to the expected standard for everyone (we don't like POINTy behavior in general, no matter who it's from or against) that I can't imagine formalizing it is necessary, and there isn't consensus to do so anyway. So, un-topic-banned without conditions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Echo (Notifications) released

Hey all :). Just to let you know that Notifications, or Echo, has now been released on the English-language Wikipedia. You should start seeing things now: let us know on the talkpage if you see any bugs or have any feedback! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notifications?! this is where is starts... Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you need a cookie. I've given you one. :) Rd232 ^talk 20:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It's quite easy to opt out. GiantSnowman 20:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

On a serious note: maybe there could be some documentation. A watchlist notice (mentioning the customisation options now in Prefs), and maybe an amendment to MediaWiki:Echo-none to link the word notifications to Wikipedia:Notifications, so that people clicking the new "0" aren't left bemused. Rd232 ^talk 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Or possibly a new, simple Help:Notifications, as Wikipedia:Notifications is quite ... developery projecty. Or Wikipedia:Notifications/FAQ. Rd232 ^talk 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Never mind - I'm not getting to MediaWiki:Echo-none any more - zero messages instead gives the same Echo flyout (with links to the FAQ and preferences). Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a disaster! I did not realise the notification system involved doing away with the orange bar. New users have enough trouble noticing that, and will surely overlook a small red dot. Much more seriously, IP users do not get notifications, and no longer get the orange bar, so IP users now do not get told at all that they have a talk page message. The whole system of IP vandal-warning messages has become useless. We need the orange bar back NOW, at least for IPs. Please comment at the talkpage. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be an oversight, that will hopefully be rectified soon (not that I'm excusing it). I've done a bit of testing, and blocked IP addresses to get a link to their talk page in the default block notice they get when they try to edit. This will direct them, albeit belatedly, to the reasons why they've been blocked, and instructions for requesting unblocks. In the meantime, I suggest being lenient on first time blocked anon vandals, remembering that they probably haven't seen any warnings. An optimist on the run!   12:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been experimentng, too. Even if, as an IP, you suspect you may have a talk page message, it's not easy to find, because there is no "My talk" link. I had to type ~~~~ in the sandbox to find what IP I was, and then type "User talk:xx.xx.xx.xx" in the search box. JohnCD (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• No more orange banner? ... cool. We kin haz Plausible deniability now. — Ched :  ?  12:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I didn't realise the orange banner was gone for good; I don't mind notifications for reverts etc. but the banner for talk pages messages should be brought back for all. GiantSnowman 12:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• I really hope the orange banner comes back. Frequent users will probably manage fine without it, but noobs (not just IPs!) seriously need it, as does anybody who only edits occasionally. Please make the removal of the orange banner opt-in! I'm sure some of us, for instance Jimbo, would like to be rid of it. But Ched makes a good point about plausible deniability, though in a very naughty way. I don't want people I've warned to have plausible deniability, because I want to block the suckers! Block, block!! Wham, biff, urkkk!! [/me is led away shouting ecstatically.] Bishonen | talk 14:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC).
  • I'm already not noticing messages. Banner opt-in, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • • "Banner opt-in"..? Not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not, Crisco. Do you want the banner to be default and the removal of the banner opt-in, like I do? Bishonen | talk 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC).
    • Or better yet, banner opt-out please, since IPs can't opt in or out of anything. I already missed some messages and didn't notice them until I checked my watchlist. Nyttend (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think I like this idea even better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, banner opt-out, definitely; new users need it most, they don't know about talk pages or know their way about the screen, and are very likely to miss a small red blob. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• (multiple ec) As an admin who regularly works in areas involving fringe medical notions and conspiracy theories, I regularly encounter new and/or infrequent and/or single-purpose editors who have a...very tight focus to their interests coupled to an...idiosyncratic worldview, and who often have trouble assimiliating basic concepts like 'edit warring is bad', indenting comments, signing comments, the existence of article talk pages, etc. Some can be slowly guided into being useful Wikipedia contributors, but I suspect that most wouldn't even be aware that they had a user talk page if it weren't for the big orange banner. Without that really clear signal, it may become literally impossible to communicate with some new editors, whether to help them acculturate or just to explain to them why they have been blocked. The banner needs to be the default behavior, because messages from other editors are very important things – particularly for new editors – to be aware of. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Ten, the implementation choice of removing the big orange bar was very ill-considered. Orange bar should be opt-out only, with that capability for registered users only. I would actually support adding a new technical capability for admins to leave "Acknowledgement required" messages - the editor would not be able to proceed with any editing capabilities without being shown the message and clicking on "I acknowledge receipt of this message", and with a user log record of having done so when acknowledged. Zad68 14:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ha. What a good idea. Why don't we already have this? Please take it to the Village Pump, Zad! Bishonen | talk 14:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC).
    • Glad you think it's a worthwhile idea! Opened Village Pump proposal here, please comment. Zad68 15:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• The little red blob is far too discreet for any but registered, autoconfirmed accounts, preferably with opt-out for the orange bar. There will be a lot of bitten new users and blissfully unaware vandals and edit-warriors if they're expected to notice the little red number and figure out what it signifies. Acroterion (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment; thanks for all the reasonable comments :). It's great to have constructive feedback! I've left an update here which hopefully helps clarify what we're doing around these problems - and I agree that they're problems. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Cross-posted from (i.e. also spammed at) the notifications talk page: Hey, all, I've created a cookie-based user script at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js to try and replicate some of the OBOD functionality. Obviously it's not as good as the real thing, but it's not totally awful. Let me know if there are any bugs y'all find. (Obviously, it requires cookies to be enabled in your browser.) Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I want my Orange Bar... so I've installed this... and (thanks for the test!) it's working... Orange goodness...Begoon ^talk 16:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

NO FACEBOOK. I WANT MY ORANGE BAR BACK. And why weren't we told about this? PumpkinSky talk 21:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Like .... sorry, just had to! Zad68 02:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. With the orange bar, we knew there was a new user talk-page post, and a diff was offered to the last change, so we could get there with one click. Now, we see the little number has changed, but don't know why. One click tells us it's the user talk page. A second click takes us to the page. We then have to scroll down to find the new post or posts. I'm now checking my user talk-page history to make sure I haven't missed one. It would be great to have the orange bar back. I think the bar is probably better for new users too to make sure they see people are trying to contact them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The best summary I've seen of why we should do a temporary reversion to the Orange Bar while we figure out and implement a better design for the Echo replacement of it. Rd232 ^talk 23:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Too subtle for newbies. Orange banner back please. NE Ent 02:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed, bring back the big orange bar, until and unless people opt out. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agreed; bring back the orange bar, preferably as an opt-out thing. If editors like Notifications, fine, let them have it; but (a) as with any UI change, some established editors will prefer the old way, and (b) the orange bar is much more obvious - we need to be sure that new/inexperienced editors are actually reading messages on their talkpages. Obviously a thread on WP:AN is likely to attract lots of people falling into group A but I think group B is actually more important for enwiki as a whole. bobrayner (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Defaulting to having an annoying orange bar of some sort is a good idea as long as we have the option to opt out of it in preferences. I don't care for it, but for new users it is likely to be the best way to wave your arms in their face and tell them they have a message. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah this is proving to be a pain.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to let everybody know, there already is an ongoing RFC regarding the orange bar with some Wikimedia staff involved as well. Chamal's sock ^{SockMaster•C} 10:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

An update: I've improved the Orange Bar script such that it no longer relies on cookies; it should be much more robust now. If y'all are still interested, please feel free to give it a shot and give me any feedback you like; it's still located at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/orangeBar.js. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I believe I just fixed a bug in older browsers, notably IE8. As ever, send me any bugs y'all find. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• By popular demand, I've restored the "last change" functionality in the script. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, I'm putting this here not because it affects administrators, but because it requires their attention.

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

---

Where I've been porting userspace drafts into mainspace, there are redirects everywhere. Please delete the following redirects:

• User:Launchballer/Alvin Risk
• User:Launchballer/DJ Hoppa
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alvin Risk
• User:Launchballer/Teen Beat (song)
• User:Launchballer/Give It Up
• User talk:Launchballer/Give It Up

Thank you.--Launchballer 07:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 Deleted all but Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alvin Risk. It's customary not to delete the redirect when you move an AfC draft into mainspace. Next time, however, you can just use {{db-u1}}. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Block of Guerrilla of the Renmin

On 23:03, 2 May 2013, GotR requested full protection of New York, New York. I declined that request 01:08, 4 May 2013. GotR requested pending changes for Boston marathon bombings at 19:09, 4 May 2013. HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) declined that request 10:07, 5 May 2013. Not satisfied with the answer to his requests, GotR resumbitted both requests today, adding that IP editors are scum and it isn't a problem to inconvenience them.[2] I declined both requests. I warned GotR at 19:10, 5 May 2013 that his behavior was not okay and that referring to IP editors as "scum" was not acceptable. He used popups to revert my decline of his requests (19:14, 5 May 2013). I warned him at 19:16, 5 May 2013 that this was not acceptable and continuing would lead to him being blocked. He continued at 19:24, 5 May 2013 and I blocked him at 19:30, 5 May 2013 for 24 hours. I don't consider this an issue of WP:INVOLVED, but figured others might disagree. Any admin who sees fit should take whatever action they deem necessary to confirm/reduce/remove the block. Thanks, --auburnpilot talk 19:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

AP is not involved; block isn't horrible. NE Ent 20:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems a good example of the first sentence of the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role... is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Nyttend (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Good block. In fact, you probably would have been justified in blocking him earlier. Hopefully 24 hours off will give him time to cool off. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool down? Hopefully GotR will post an appropriate unblock before then so they can get back to editing. NE Ent 22:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In my view the block was appropriate, but an unblock at this time would also be appropriate. This is an editor who shows good signs of being capable of learning from harsh experience. Looie496 (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks to everyone above for the review. GotR has requested an unblock and I have commented there. --auburnpilot talk 00:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Final note. After engaging with GotR on his talk page, I do not believe an unblock would be appropriate. It is clear he does not grasp the reasoning for his block or what is necessary to avoid blocks in the future. I am disengaging and will allow other admins to address his request. --auburnpilot talk 00:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Block

Please block Ulv80. He always inset interwiki in articles, templates and category who already are in wikidata. When people removed he edits he just put it back again. --109.232.72.49 (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ulv80 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP is asking for Ulv80 to be blocked, not unblocked. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I clearly should have gone to bed sooner than I did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Posted a message on their talk page. I don't think a block is called for here yet. If anyone speaks Polish, though, a message at pl:user talk:Ulv80 probably wouldn't hurt. Jafeluv (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure needed

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TheListUpdater/Northland Center has been open since April 17 with no votes. Can this be closed as an uncontested WP:STALEDRAFT? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done closed delete.--Salix (talk): 10:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User restoring edits of banned user and 4 years old sock-puppeteer

Hello! I want to ask the administrators about the assist given by different users to the 2-times banned user User:Stubes99, This editor had tens of socks but many times some users (in the last case User:Norden1990 [3] [4] [5]) restore the information inserted by him (sometimes we talk about mass illegal editing - entire paragraphs added by this banned user - [6]). What is the opinion of the admins about this situation? How is User:Stubes99 penalized if his edits are validated by his supporters and remain on the site? Stubes99 defies our community and can create a new account whenever he wants (because he owns several IP ranges) to continue his work. He is socking for 4 years - the original account is Celebration1981 [7] and the earliest known sock account is User:Celebration81 - and no one and nothing was able to stop his editing in illegality. His status is only formally of a banned user, because in practice he can activate like any well-behaved contributor. The never ending cycle is the following: he creates a account, makes edits, he is blocked, his edits are reverted for being illegal, and then his edits are reinstated by his friends. Users like User:Norden1990 who support his edits simly encourage him to go on in his socking. I am requesting a solution for solving this.

It seems that User:Norden1990 started acting like a meatpuppet of User:Stubes99. Some days ago they started e-mail communication [8][9][10] and now he began restoring his edits and now they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail.

User:Stubes99 also posted a message in Hungarian language on User talk:Hobartimus, which can be translated as "Hello! Why do not you set your profile to wikis by e-mail, which could communicate with you? Thanks for your response!" [11]. Hobartimus is old friend of Stubes99 [12].

Another question: Why does not Celebration1981 a.k.a. Stubes99 appear here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Long-term_abuse_-_Active after 4 years of continuous socking?--Omen1229 (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Newnou, who reverted the sockpuppet's edits, was also banned, so I just brought back the article to stable version. It was strange for me that a sockpuppet remove long details from an article before banning. "It seems that", "they very likely communicate and cooperate via e-mail" - there are not appear to be evidence. I cooperated with Balkony (I did not know that (s)he is a sockpuppet, maybe I only suspected) in tha case of Central Europe where I helped to him to add statement from Western European historiographical works. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What stable version? The stable (the last valid version) is the version before-Stubes99 and before-Newnou. User Newnou only removed the ilegal edits made by the other banned user: Stubes99 added text, Newnou deleted added text going back to the previous version, and you restored the ilegal edits. Take this example: Stubes99 added text [13], Newnou reverted to Fakirbakir's version [14] and you reinstated Stubes99 edit [15].

The problem is that you validated the content added by a banned user, encouraging his activity. Tomorrow he will create a new account and resume his editing, knowing that you are behind him to restore his edits in case someonw will revert him.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you stop this hysteria? Newnou was also a sockpuppet, so he had no right to delete someone else's edit. Anyway, Balkony additions were sourced and referenced, using Western historiographical publications, so I checked these modifications. Indeed, in the case of Vona, I made a mistake accidentally, but it is very interesting that edit was not reverted by you, unlike the others, proving that the contents of the edits that bother you and not the user itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't block Balkony as a sock until 28 hours ago, if that makes a difference. I might have just missed it, but I didn't see where you have discussed the issue with the other editor before bringing it here, so I naturally have to ask if this can be handled on a talk page, particularly since we have one set of socks reverting another set of socks, so it is possible for an editor to revert to the "wrong" version, all in the best of faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not contact Norden1990 directly, because this user has done a lot false personal attacks against me and a constructive discussion([16][17][18] etc.) is really very difficult with this user: he called me recently "chauvinist user" [19] or named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist... [20]

It seems that Norden1990 continues restoring information added by the banned user [21].

Unfortunately Stubes99 sockpuppet factory is working at full capacity. He created 4 new accounts in the last days: User:Drickler, User:Sovietsco, User:Rightfullruler, User:Antisockpuppeterer to restore his deleted contributions and it seems nothing can stop him. Isn't posible to find an antidote against this man? On Austria-Hungary article he has new supporters (who in fact probably don't know Stube99), who reinstated his lawless additions [22] (full paragraphs, and tens of thousands of letters).--Omen1229 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is also important that we find a solution against Iaaasi, whose activity is harmful for the Wikipedia. Dear Omen, a constructive discussion is not difficult with me, see lot of cases in my talkpage. I reserve the indicatives about you, I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Satan unsearchable?

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

---

In the midst of a research on fallen angels and other biblical matters, I found that if I click on any link on satan, or I search the word "satan" in the wikipedia search, the wikipedia page become blocked in an eternal loop. I don't know were to signal this problem, I hope this is the right section.

I thinked it was some form of censorship, or maybe someone blocked it on purpose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.231.42.154 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Mhhh should be a demon in my pc, now it seems ok after I searched again O__o

delete this post please ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.231.42.154 (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Church: The Show hoax

To me, this new "article" by User:Dash.tastix looks like a hoax, possibly with intent of defamation, especially when regarding the picture of a fully identifiable minor labelled as "elder brown". --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's not a hoax, it's just a Youtube thing that does not assert any importance - I've speedy-deleted it as CSD:A7 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC regarding the scope of the Ombudsman Commission

The Ombudsman Commission is currently holding a request for comment. Currently, the Commission only hears complaints regarding the privacy policy. We propose to change the scope of the Commission to also include hearing complaints about the global Checkuser and m:Oversight policy policies.

For more information please visit the RFC, which can be found at m:Requests for comment/Scope of Ombudsman Commission. Please direct all questions and comments there.

For the Ombudsman Commission,

--(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Advice request for WP:SPA who is whitewashing Jack Kemp

There is an WP:SPA who is whitewashing Jack Kemp's article by removing negative opinions of experts like Newsweek journalists. I don't want to get into a reversion war. What should I do?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone else already reverted back. I just left a message on their talk page. You didn't notify them that you brought up an issue with them here, something you should do now, as it is required even if you don't mention them by name. Normally, just leaving them a message like I just did is enough to get them talking, or to demonstrate they won't talk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Temporary notification system

I am going to enable a default gadget that will pop up when you receive a notification. I do this because there is a valid concern new editors may not notice the standard red blip on top of the screen. While there is consensus that some form of notification alert is needed, the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notifications/New message indicator is going downhill fast.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Notifications/Popup documentation. — Edokter (talk) — 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Is someone also going to bring back typewriters, the quill and ink, messenger pigeons, and horse and buggies? That's the kind of mentality we are dealing with here. With a community as afraid of change as this, it's really a wonder they can use a computer. I'll be awaiting a reply with a coconut shell tied to a string... Wikipedia is going to be left far behind if they keep up this stubborn, "I won't allow any changes" attitude. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It's a wonder we're not still using the classic skin. — Edokter (talk) — 01:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested in what's really going on here, see Resistance (philosophy). Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're still walking on two legs, no? Have you tried breathing through your ass? It's different so it must be progress. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point by a few light years. We did not always walk on two legs. The opposition to creativity on this site will be its downfall. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no creativity in that move. Just the urge to change for change's sake. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's one of the most creative acts in proto-human history. Necessity is the mother of invention. You appear to be using a different definition of creativity than I am. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing the orange bar on wikipedia is proto-human history? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever are you talking about? It was very clear what I was talking about. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And it was very clear what I said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you were speaking dolphinese to a chimpanzee underwater riding a whale. Totally clear. Viriditas (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, this new gadget has very little to do with the orange bar... Ignatzmice•talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's even uglier than the bar, if that were possible :) But it does the job. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to keep it as simple as possible by using the exixting mw.notify framework, which does not allow extensive styling. — Edokter (talk) — 01:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No complaints. Sometimes ugly is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And, sometimes ugly is beautiful. Or as it is usually known, "exotic". :) Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate that it comes with easy to follow instructions to turn off, and hopefully will address the OBOD concerns. NE Ent 09:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Backlog

WP:RPP has nearly 20 protection requests not tended to yet. Get to work. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cotting on Talk:Syrian civil war

There has been a tendency for editors on Talk:Syrian civil war to engage in conversations about the conflict itself without suggesting any edit. I've taken it upon myself to {{cot}} sufficiently derailed discussions, discussions about editor bias, etc. Ironically, there's a discussion about me cotting the discussions (eg here). Would an experienced editor care to weight in and see if any of my cots were inappropriate? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have outlined the problem on the page in question. TippyGoomba is arbitrarily removing sections that discuss the validity of sources and content[23][24][25] (other examples have been de-"hatted"), which is a very valid use of the talkpages, and other regular editors of the page have complained too. TippyGoomba also has a tendency to hide blocks of comments in the middle of discussions, including valid comments within this block, thereby completely destroying any cohesiveness and readability. Talkpages are not only for suggesting direct edits of the article, but also for discussion about what to include in it. No one elected TippyGoomba for policeman/judge, yet that is all he does on that talk page, and does not contribute to the content discussions other than just asking "what changes do you suggest" after every other comment. The talk page worked just fine before his recent entry out of nowhere, and it is a given that debate will get heated on controversial pages. TippyGoomba's own talk page notifications are testament to this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The first two cots were right on target, the talk page was being used as a forum, so cotting it as "not a forum" was right,

the third one, was cotted as not a reliable source, that wasn't too cool, however, TippyGoomba didn't comment on it at all, still, a bit much, I think.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with FM. Discussion on the talkpage can get tangential and even ugly, but on a contentious topic that's to be expected. Now and then, I have hatted a few particularly egregious subthreads, but the frequency with which TG snaps things shut is honestly pretty damn annoying and even counterproductive. It hasn't proven effective in curbing "hattable" material, only in making the talkpage a mess. Discussions are best brought on-topic by introduction of source material, not by hiding slightly off-topic exchanges. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Bot?

Something doesn't look right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems likely but you never know, Firefox on lin can hold like 2k+ tabs and one could preload all of them and then go thru and submit en-masse. I suggest contacting the user rather than discussing it here, unless there's a problem with their creations that necessitate an immediate block. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I've pinged them when I put it here. The main reason I brought it here (rather than ANI) was to get schooled a bit, as this was unusual and not something I usually run across in my daily activities, but the nature and odd linkage in some of their creations were such that I felt it needed more eyes immediately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Prison-industrial complex

Seems to have suddenly attracted a bunch of "new editors" each of whom seems to be pretty much the same - though seemingly unwilling to stick to the stated topic of that article. I doubt they will actually hang around, but semi-ing it would likely help. Collect (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2013 Cleveland, Ohio missing trio‎

2013 Cleveland, Ohio missing trio‎ needs a rollback to a stable state and temporary semi-protection. Multiple IPs are making changes while there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about whether to make the changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on WP:NOTNEWS, the "stable state" would be "before the article even existed" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is more than NEWS, so NOTNEWS does not apply. GiantSnowman 16:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• [Citation needed]. This belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. I have nominated it for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wow. That one sure kicked over a hornet's nest! The good news is that AfDs last long enough for it to become evident whether there is lasting notability before a decision is made. Assuming, of course, that nobody jumps the gun and forces an early close... --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Which, of course, someone just did. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• And another editor (not me) put it up for DR: Wikipedia:Deletion review#2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. This is why we should not have rapid-fire edited late-breaking news articles. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confused as to why this discussion is here, on the page for discussing the admin noticeboard itself? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• My error. It should be moved. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia...) --Guy Macon (talk)

And off we go on yet another OR-churning BLP-violating exhibition of journalism-by-hysteria. Or rather, off they go. I'm staying out of this one, as I've seen quite enough of this garbage, and would rather wait around until the WMF gets sued for allowing this sort of nonsense to happen. Which seems a sure-fire certainty at some point unless there is a significant change in policy. Presenting uninformed speculation and drive-by-pseudojournalism as encyclopaedic content would be fraud if we were selling it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)