Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Strangesad (talk | contribs) at 04:52, 19 August 2013 (→‎Appeal of topic ban by Jc37 that lacked community consensus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "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.

      Shortcuts

      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

      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)[reply]

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

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

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

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      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)[reply]

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

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

      (Initiated 90 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)[reply]

       Done Vacant0. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      (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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

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

      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)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone taking a look at this? Pretty please. Selfstudier (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Talk:Kamala_Harris#RFC:_How_to_refer_to_the_African_ancestry_of_Kamala_Harris?

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 31 July 2024) Requesting closure on this discussion which has not had a new comment in a week when excluding its brief archival. The discussion is lengthy and split into multiple sections. Note: The article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

      (Initiated 43 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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 43 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
       Done Nemov. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 36 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      • 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)[reply]
        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)[reply]
        @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)[reply]

      Talk:Algeria#RfC on ethnic groups in the infobox

      (Initiated 23 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)[reply]

      @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)[reply]
      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)[reply]

      Talk:MJ_the_Musical#Request_for_comment

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 3 August 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)[reply]

       Done by Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs)

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 13 August 2024) Last comment 20 days ago. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 8 23 31
      TfD 0 0 1 10 11
      MfD 0 0 4 5 9
      FfD 0 0 1 1 2
      RfD 0 0 5 27 32
      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 21 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

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

      (Initiated 287 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 80 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter#Proposed_moratorium

      (Initiated 22 days ago on 27 August 2024) Needs a closed from an experienced user. Cremastra (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal

      (Initiated 12 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      User_talk:Kauffner

      Kauffner (talk · contribs) has now been ifdeffed for sockpuppetry (the most recent cases occurring just this week). The original source of the temporary block was edit warring over a page he created which was redirected after multiple consensus building discussions. He is now using his talk page to misrepresent the reasons for his block, and as a talk page copy of the article which was redirected. I believe this is an inappropriate use of the talk page so someone might want to do something about that. I will notify him, even though he cannot respond here. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've removed the cut and past of the article from their talk page, along with a note explaining why it is inappropriate. Kauffner is free to present their arguments in an unblock request if they would like to, however using the talk page to continue the same arguments and disruption that led to the block will only result in their talk page access being revoked.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 19:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Way to go. But he should really get a community block. Otherwise, he might write another article on Vietnamese writing, or something like that. SpanishHarlem1 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      He is certainly taking the mick with us. He knew where he was heading as his tricks where becoming too open. He gets involved in a really stupid editwar which leads to his block and has an army of sleeper socks prepared for that eventuality. I don't know what his reasoning was, maybe he thought he could get away with it and get his POW accross while pretending to be someone else. Maybe he wants to play cat-and-mouse with us. Either way he clearly has no regard for this community and as such has no place here. I move for a site-ban. Opinions? Agathoclea (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Ban proposal: Kauffner

      With a history of sockpuppetry, disruption and being unable to work with others, I think it's time to propose a community ban on Kauffner. I think the community needs to step up and say to him, "You are done here."

      Request to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article

      User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto have established a long-term pattern of personal attacks and harassment against this editor, as a contributer to Peter Sellers. This has made the article an extremely hostile editing atmosphere since those editors began editing last summer, with little ability for others to amend or improve the article since that time. Note that I and another editor had been the primary contributers beginning years earlier.

      A few diffs and summaries:

      casually spouting insults;

      accusing editors of bad faith and uncivil discussions;

      • Considering you and Br'er Rabbit were edit warring at the time and being disruptive, I stand by the comments wholeheartedly. Sadly, to quote from my own words in that diff, the following have become something of a mantra when dealing with you sniping and attacks on the page: "I also think that your continual accusations of WP:OWNership to be an WP:uncivil, unnecessary ad hominem attack without basis or merit and (for the umpeeth time) I ask you to stop throwing them out whenever you happen to disagree with something". Yes, I certainly do still stand by that - even more so that when I first wrote it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      with supporting PAs by others;

      more failure to AGF, and threatening to “overhaul” an unrelated article I have contributed to and improved;

      • There was no "threat". Polanski was an article Cassianto and I discussed updating, as it's in a rather parlous state. However, because you made the experience on Sellers so negative and toxic we moved onto another article (also now an FA) instead. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      and threatening to turn that “overhaul” into a game;

      • Not sure where you are getting the "game" idea from. I mention fun, that is all. Funnily enough I edit Wikipedia for fun and enjoyment, which isn't quite the "game" you accuse me of. Others will also note the ongoing accusations of ownership you baselessly throw around too. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      with almost all of his comments equally loaded with PAs and “dittoed” by another;

      • This was part of the conversation to revert an FA back to your preferred C-class version isn't it? I think that fact itself shows more about your approach to this article's development and improvement than anything else! - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      and even attacting a drive-by editor with very serious PAs;

      • Eeerrmmm.... Not sure exactly what Betty Logan has said that even vaguely constitutes a personal attack there? "Maybe it only counted your 39 'one' votes once, so when a another voter came along and gave it a 5 it averaged out to 3?" Looks like she was trying to explain something to you, rather than throw insults at you... - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, maybe you're right. That's an aspect I never considered. BTW, what ever happened to the reader ratings options? --Light show (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      treating such PA as another reason to engage in argumenation with threats on my talk page and the the article’s talk page;

      • 1. There was no personal attack in the thread; 2. Do not EVER delete or the comments of others on a talk page. If you think it's a problem, go to an admin to have the comments struck; 3. There was absolutely no threat at all. You were edit warring up to WP:3RR. I warned you that if you reverted again I would report you: not just acceptable, but necessary as part of WP:ANEW. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      to make sure the the PAs of another remain.

      • Highlighting to someone just how they have turned an article's talk page and history into a toxic soup isn't a PA, and the comments of independent parties below support that this isn't a PA. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Review of the above would be helpful. As Peter Sellers was a notable UK comedian, it makes this request to censure PAs an oxymoron, sadly to say.--Light show (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Addendum: The user was notified about this discussion on their talk page, per requirements, but they immediately deleted the notice. --Light show (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As an onlooker, I seriously don't get what's going on here. WP:NPA states that a personal attack is either "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views," "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence," and that "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll look at this, but the first thing I saw from Talk:Peter Sellers was that Light Show is at 3RR due to the repeated removal of comments that, frankly, don't rise to the level of personal attack. Whatever else happens here, Light Show, you really and truly need to stop removing people's comments. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, if you're going to discuss the edits of "A few other editors", you need to notify those editors, as required by policy. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
       Done, but also deleted --Light show (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Purlease. These arn't PA's. Just a complaint from an editor who didn't like the fact that another editor came a long and made substantial changes that improved the article so much it is now FA. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have had my say on the Sellers talk page (which was deleted numerous times by the complainant), so I don't feel the need to defend myself here. Being responsible for co-writing and co-nominating the article which was otherwise wallowing in C-class, and now finding itself as an FA, does not warrant the kind of trolling which the complainant has been doing since its promotion. If protecting the article is such a crime, then I will happily request to block myself! -- CassiantoTalk 19:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Pointless thread, not constructive. I strongly suggest that this is closed asap.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Yeah, I don't see any personal attacks in the diffs provided. I do see edit warring from Light show, however. Might not be a horrible idea for Light show to go edit something else for a while - fighting over the infobox, when that seems to have already been settled recently, seems unwise as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Are you having a laugh, LightShow, considering the bad faith bile you've spewed across the talk page over the last year or so? Considering you have been overwhelmingly obstructive since we started improving the article, it's rich that you're the one complaining. Since we started improving the article, Light Show has consistently

      We also had to put up with

      Even after the community had its say about the article and it had passed through FAC, LightShow (or WikiWatcher as he them was) still tried to disrupt the article: thankfully Drmies showed up to put an end to that nonsense. Sadly it didn't stop, and there was even more sniping about the article.

      Ever since we started the improvements, we have faced nothing but bad faith nonsense from LightShow against our efforts. It's frustrating and demoralising to have to deal with the endless sniping, carping and negativity. I am always deeply suspicious about accusations of ownership, especially from someone who wants to revert improvements back to their own preferred version: there is more than a touch of hypocrisy involved there I think.

      Sadly this isn't the first time LightShow has deleted comments he doesn’t like and this also has to stop. - SchroCat (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given his petty trolling of the article over many months, I do wonder if a topic ban imposed on him might be the more constructive thing to do. None of us should have to deal with a disgruntled editor with a grudge of his sort.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      How about moving it here? -- CassiantoTalk 00:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, this page is fine. We're not really discussing a single incident, but a long-term pattern of disruptive behavior that seems to warrant further review. I am surprised, though, that no one has proposed a topic ban. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      They have, Dr. Blofeld above. -- CassiantoTalk 14:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah! Missed that. I'd agree that a topic ban of Light show is warranted at this point, and would support if someone wants to draft it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm worried that there maybe a conflict of interests if I (or SchroCat for that matter) do it. Is there anyone else who could oblige? -- CassiantoTalk 16:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sounds like a productive idea. Since my last body-copy edit was simply splitting a 350-word paragraph into two shorter ones a few months ago (which, of course, was also undone by SC), that would at least save Schro/Cass click-time. And other than adding a few PD images, the one before that was last year, also deleted. On the other hand, since I'm not fond of climbing 10-foot high walls to work on articles, it seems like the topic wall/barrier is already in place. Not just for me, for anyone, as the edit history proves. --Light show (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      LightShow, your edits were reverted because they were bad. Nothing more, nothing less. Drop the "ownership" accusations: the fact you keep trying to revert an FA back you your preferred C-class version speaks volumes over who has ownership issues. - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      While I've issues with SchroCat's ownership tendencies on other articles, I don't think these comments really rank as personal attacks. Discussing differences of opinion on edit decisions can lead to heated disagreements. But I don't see name-calling, trash talking or threats here. I understand your feelings of frustration at not having your own viewpoint be the consensus or being ignored in discussions on Talk Pages but I don't think these examples warrant a topic ban...for either of you. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      FFS, this is not a forum for you to start throwing around unjustified and baseless personal attacks, NJL. Provide evidence or withdraw this ridiculous, unwarranted and unjustified accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      NewJerseyLiz, not only is your post baseless and unjust, you also appear to have the inability to constructively make a point. This post is far too neutral to be helpful to the situation and may as well not be here at all. -- CassiantoTalk 17:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Seriously? Did you only read the first sentence in that paragraph? I was defending SchroCat and saying that the claim of PAs was not justified. My understanding of her feelings didn't focus on any articles in dispute between the two parties but I just empathizing with her frustration. I don't know how anyone could have taken that expression of sympathy as a personal attack! That's just crazy and being oversensitive. And, Cassianto, maybe we should all submit our comment to you for approval before posting them. And, FWIW, your words against me are definitely not "helpful" at all.
      But you've made me think twice about coming to another user's defense in the future. Don't worry, I won't speak up for you again. Let others try taking on that role and see if it comes back to bite them, too. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 00:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
      Sorry for going off-topic but when other editors attack you, I think a rebuttal statement is justified. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 00:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My apologies for my ill-considered remarks. Wikipedia is not a forum to hash out such issues. I apologize to SchroCat and Cassianto for my sarcasm. If I have issues, I will go to your Talk Pages rather than comment on an AN that is focused on a particular problem I'm not involved in. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 13:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It wasn't an attack, it was a point made in reference to your ownership remark and the fact that your comment was so damn neutral, so please stop being so precious. If your idea of sticking up for someone is accusing them of having "ownership tendencies" then I would hate to see what you write about someone when you complain about them! Also, you admit that this ANI is baseless inasmuch that you see "...[no] name-calling, trash talking or threats here", yet go onto say that "I don't think these examples warrant a topic ban...for either of you". What do you suggest then? Carry on as we are? Have you seen the grief SchroCat and I persistently get on the Talk Page from the complainant? That's what I mean by your comment being unhelpful to the discussion. It's like having a shop thief in a court dock who is then told "I don't think banning you from the shop is the answer". -- CassiantoTalk 08:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My mistake, but when I read "While I've issues with SchroCat's ownership tendencies on other articles" from someone I've only interacted with twice before, it comes across as a rather negative smear, rather than as a "defence" to me. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not always. Once it's understood that with some editors, the SOP for discussions is simply "The best defense is a good offense,", why bother? --Light show (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No, LS, reacting to smears isn't going onto the offence at all, and your comment is unhelpful, to say the least. - SchroCat (talk) 05:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To my knowledge no "ownership" complaint has ever been upheld against SchroCat. It is usually the default accusation that is levelled at caretaker editors when they reject an edit to an article, so please let's not refer to it as if it is an established fact that he has previously been sanctioned for. We should focus solely on the remarks and the context they were made in. There are no real attacks here, some of his comments are a bit blunt and dismissive and show Schro's exasperation more than anything, but they were made against an editor who literally advocated reverting an FA class article to its C-class state i.e. nothing productive was going to come out of engaging with such an editor. The two positions are simply irreconcilable. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Light Show's presence on the article is a positive thing if he still maintains his stance that the article should be reverted to its C-class state: it's not going to happen so maybe an enforced break from this particular article will be better all-round. Betty Logan (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree with Betty Logan. That always seems to be the standard response against editors with an extensive history of constructively editing and promoting articles that they somehow think that they "own" articles. Which is just plain not true. But I bet they dang sure have a pretty good idea what a constructive edit is and what improves an article. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      School proxy autoblock

      I am helping out with a classroom Wikipedia editing project run out of the Rishi Valley School and they have a weekend editing session and for the last couple of weeks they have reported that they get automatically blocked for 24 hours. The school uses a proxy server and the students login individually from multiple terminals around the same time. Having read Wikipedia:Autoblock and IP block exemption rule, it does not appear clear to me as to how this can be handled, do the students have to each request an unblock after the blocking or can I as an administrator grant the select set of students the autoblock-exempt rights? I think a checkuser of the IP under which the following users Hibiscus2581 (talk · contribs) and Yash2944 (talk · contribs) work might reveal why they are getting blocked (how does one know who is causing the collateral damage?). Their sessions begin on Saturday, tomorrow and would be good if they can edit without troubles. PS: I am really not sure what the problem is - for a while, the school IP was 59.90.99.73 (it is not static, but seems to be rarely reset) and that does not seem to show up in the autoblock list Shyamal (talk) 09:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you. I had not seen that request. Have commented there too. Shyamal (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Inappropriate page moves by User:Captain Assassin! (Revisited)

      Captain Assassin! (talk · contribs · logs) has been performing a number of page moved that I consider to be inappropriate. The latest is described here. On July 20, 2013, Tneedham1 (talk · contribs) created the article Outlander (TV series). On August 4, Captain Assassin! moved this page to Outlander (2014 TV series), then created a redirect out of it, which he pointed toward his own newly created article at the former location Outlander (TV series). The funniest part is that comparing the diffs of the 2 articles, [4] and [5], you will see that the articles are exactly the same. Captain Assassin! has just copied the work of Tneedham1 onto his newly created page. IMO, this is completely inappropriate and unfair to the other editor.

      This is not the first time Captain Assassin! has moved articles so that he can create his own and get "credit" for it (and he does use the word "credit" often). Just over a week ago, he moved Hercules 3D, created by User:Mythoingramus, to Hercules 3D (film) and created a redirect so that it would point to his newly created version of Hercules 3D. There is no reason why Captain Assassin! could not add to/improve the original page.

      Other recent examples:

      Looking at his talk page, there have been discussions regarding page moves like this with other editors, including a "feud" with Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), which includes earlier discussions here and here. See also the history of deletions (8 within 2.5 months!) on this page: Into the Woods (film)

      (On a separate but related note, Captain Assassin! has been under considerable scrutiny for creating inappropriate redirects. That discussion is for another day because I don't have the time to document that here right now. I will mention that at least 7 editors have pointed out problems with this behavior to him in the last 3 months: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].)

      Is it possible to block an editor from being able to move pages? I feel Captain Assassin!'s page moves are inappropriate and unfair to other editors. It definitely undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I do not think that he deserves this privilege. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have fixed the Outlander issue by deleting the copy-paste and moving the original version back. I have history-merged the two versions of Hercules 3D together so that the original creating editor's edits are in the history. The others are not so straightforward, as the articles are either about different things or actually contain the user's own content. I'll continue to look at it. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My analysis, seeing as I've been viewing his conduct since May when he swiped A Million Ways to Die in the West because he had the content, is that he wants the credit. He seemingly has no other motivation, everything is a personal attack to him. [[Into the Woods was deleted before. I recreated it, but he immediately swiped it again. Rusted AutoParts 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would support a page move ban, as well as the redirect creation ban mentioned by Black Tie. Captain Assassin!'s edits are extremely disruptive, and he doesn't see any problems with his actions. Occasionally he does apologize for a "mistake", then continues to make it again and again. I do not feel this issue will go away without administrative action of some kind.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You see now, I'm not the only here. And we already discussed it, it was resolved and now he again moved it into some film project page. What now? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That's only a minor issue. What about your redirecting of the Outlander article and then recreating it yourself with the same content? That's simply disruptive. What was the thinking behind that? Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not only disruptive, although that may also be block worthy, it is apparent copyright violation (and plain old deceitful), because there is not attribution to the original author under the license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry about that, won't happen again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That isn't an explanation of why you did it in the first place. Why did you do it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Look, I created the redirect of Outlander, a user CSD it and got it removed on July 19. So on the next day some user created it, I was just in bad mood already so it happened that way. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      In an apparent effort to collect "credit" for creating articles, Captain Assassin rushes to create redirects and articles, apparently merely copying info from IMDb. Palo Alto (2013 film) was created with one (and only one) source which directly and specifically stated that the collection of stories ("Palo Alto") was expected to be made into three films, none of which are named "Palo Alto" and none of which are likely to be released in 2013. The Winter Queen (2014 film) was created as a redirect with the target only stating that filming was expected to begin in 2011 (with 2010 sources); the IMDb page likely used has now been deleted. Just Before I Go was created as a nonsensical redirect to the director. Faced with the possible deletion of the redirect, Captain created an article based on one (and only one) source that only knows of the project as "Hello I Must Be Going". In general (supporting my IMDb as the only source theory) his film articles include substantial lists of names not found in any other source (seriously: where else do you find the editor's name when the film has just started filming?). In addressing this issue, Captain says, essentially, that he plans to find sources for the information he adds after adding it. In short, it seems Captain is frequently here to collect "credit", not to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've just read the editor's talk page, and I think the problem goes well beyond creating bizarre redirects and unsourced articles about possible future films. I don't think a topic ban is going to cut it here, the real problem is a total lack of competency. I would support a topic ban if that's as far as folks are willing to go, but I'm afraid the real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll be very pleased if you show me to be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      He could probably do with tidying up his signature a bit too. 529 characters to sign and date a post (especially when the I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. comment is just 69 characters long). Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'm certainly going to support an indef, having looked at this. Captain Assassin's behaviour is flat-out wrong, and needs to stop, permanently. Moving around articles on your whim, and copy-paste moves to try and gain credit is bang out of order, and this is not what Wikipedia is for. Add in the inappropriate new articles you've created, and we're left with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is here to attention seek, by any means possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How is my behavior flat-out wrong now? What am I doing now, I'm just saying that I'll show myself improved if you just give me some time and see. Is there anything wrong in saying that? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No probs. Rather than all this topic ban nonsense, I purpose a simple "do not move/do not create redirects" until futher notice. Captain Assassin has done some great work expanding articles and I think this is a bit heavy-handed (I can't see a previous ANI about the same issue). For page moves, if in doubt either go to the film project or log a request at requested moves. For redirects, there's no need to create them as they would fail WP:NFF and will be speedily deleted in any case. Of course, if you are actually starting a new notable article, that is fine. Any of the people who brought this to ANI disagree? Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again Lugnuts, but look, I'll not move any redirect or film page until I noticed you but creating redirects is another problem. Because if I'm willing to create an article (as example an adaptation) later so if I have reliable sources at the target and the film is in development so I should have created the redirect, what do you think of that? Sorry if I'm wrong but I think WP:NFF is for future films articles but I'm not creating the articles until principal photography or filming begin, I'm just saying for the creation of redirects to make them article later when filming begin. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is nothing in Wikipedia:Redirect which appears to justify creating a redirect for a subject that doesn't meet notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes and there is a thing in that to create the redirects to the sections of other articles if we need it, so I think redirects can be created if they meet notability, like I said I will only create the redirects when target articles have reliable sources and proper evidence of the redirected article and then it is a significant redirect to wait to be created into a good and expanded article later. And its just redirects man, everyone creates the redirects some have been caught ( like me :), kidding ) and others fled, it's just the matter of time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Per the last comment, I would say that at minimum, any topic ban on Captain Assassin! needs to unequivocally include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. This contributor is self-evidently obsessed with 'getting in first', and such an attitude can only be to the detriment of the project. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would agree completely with the fact that any topic ban will need to include a complete ban on creation of any redirects. Unfortunately, I cannot see Captain Assassin! being able to follow through with this. From his comments above, he clearly is not interested in agreeing to such a ban. From the conversations he has had with User:Rossami and User:SummerPhD on his talk page, he has gone back on his word to not create redirects without proper sources many times. For that reason, for his recent comments above, and his history of wanting to get "credit" for everything, I think the encyclopedia would benefit if he was permanently blocked. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the evidence doesn't look too good in CA's favour. This redirect was created in the last 24hrs (IE while this discussion was ongoing) with the edit summary "Film is not started filming or production yet so redirect to its main article". The main article states "[the film] was still in the works however likely would follow Terminator 5, which is due for release in 2015". Hardly grounds for creating a meaningful redirect of any real use. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying that I'm always going to create redirects, I'm just saying that I'll only create some redirects with high notability. I'm not fighting and doing anything harm to you or Wikipedia, I'm just asking for it to let me do it just a few which I will create and expand later. I'll create redirects like 50 or 100 a moment or in a month, I'll only create which have to be created (like novel and musical adaptations with production information at their targets. I'm asking it very politely, if you are thinking I'm in bad mood or I'm a angry person, well I'm not. I'm agree with you all but about redirects I'm just asking for it because everyone here in Wikipedia is allow to create them, so should I. I've learned so much in this discussion but I want to help Wikipedia. If you just think a little that a redirect will take us to the target where information of that redirected article is available with pure reliable sources and this thing is also an Admin said to me to put information about the redirected article at the target with sources then create the redirect. I'm not talking about credits here, I'm talking about rules. There are no rules to not create the redirects, if you want to ban me you should ban completely creating redirects so no one will create redirects in future. And again (specially to you Logical Fuzz), I'm not a bad guy or a rude if you are thinking of that, I'm a very politely talking and kind heart person in my real life and I'm not talking rude here too. And as above User:Lukeno94 said about my behavior, I never get angry even if someone beat me hardly so how would I behave rude or my behavior could be wrong. I'm just a animation student with full of sorrows and grieves who is looking for happiness in real life. I never hurt a person real life how can I harm or destroy encyclopedia, I don't want to. I'm nothing in here, I've made mistakes and still making perhaps, so do everyone (if not now sometimes in the past). I like very much to help encyclopedia even I tell everyone around me (my friends) to use it and help it by editing, I'm a fast learner and I don't do the thing again if someone stopped me to not to do (even in my real life) but this redirect thing is just making me crazy, you now why if you have just saw me editing or working here you all can see that I've mostly worked on stub creating, I mean I love to create stub articles, I love to start them and see others expanding them. It's not like I want credits, once I wanted it when I moved some redirects mentioned above but when I got here in this discussion I swore not to do that again. You are not thinking clearly or perhaps not understanding me clearly, don't mind I'm just saying, I think I wrote something which teased you or I don't know...which showed you or made you think that my behavior is rude but seriously I'm very polite talking. I don't know why I want to create redirects so much perhaps for stub creating as I told. You can see my whole editing history or ask Mr. User:Bgwhite or User:Mar4d, I'm really very interested in creating stubs and I had always in past. So I'm just asking/saying please don't ban it, it helps to create history in editing of that article which I think also benefits Wikipedia. Or if, if you want to ban it then I'll suggest ban it permanently in Wikipedia so no one should create them (if you think redirects are harmful to encyclopedia). And in last this blocked thing, I don't think Wikipedia wants a user blocked who is editing a lot (if not a lot then a few but it is something), so I don't want to be blocked at any price but I've told you my problems and solutions as well in this comment. I don't know what you all are thinking but I'm not being rude to anyone, once I was angry only with User:Rusted AutoParts but I forgave him after that and I apologize to him now. You all should know that I'm a Muslim and we are very good in forgiving (if not everyone, I'm), our religion wants peace and we are peaceful. Today is our Eid al-Fitr holiday celebrations, this is a great celebration day for all Muslims, I'll just say Allah bless you all with great happiness :). Please don't think I'm involving the religion in this, it's just because today is a big day for us. By the way Lugnuts, I thought you were helping me in this condition of mine Twins 2 is the title in development announced by actor, is it wrong seriously?. So the decision is up to you all, I'm nothing guys but I'm just wanting to help it because I love Wikipedia and I told this to everyone around me when they make joke of me editing it (personally I want to edit it and edit and edit and edit it like always :) ). -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 15:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also repeat my comment. Captain Assassin is either trolling, is otherwise choosing to ignore the concerns raised by everyone in this thread, or simply doesn't understand what is going on. Either way, their wall of text is a clear sign that they're a net negative. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've known Assassin since he first started. For full disclosure, I do consider him a friend around here. I've personally never seen Assassin do any trolling or ignore concerns. He does however have trouble understanding. Assassin's current actions are vary similar to when he first started. It took a bit, but Kudpung and I finally "knocked" some sense into him. I'm not sure if it a language barrier or cultural differences or.... I can see two solutions.

      1. Before any page move or redirect created, he asks somebody first. After a bit of time, Assassin will understand what constitutes a good or bad page move. I am willing to be the person to help him out, however this is not my area of expertise. If Assassin does move a page or create a redirect without asking first, he should have a page move and redirect ban placed.
      2. Place a page move and redirect ban now. But, not a permanent one.

      I would, of course, favour option #1. Beyond My Ken said, "...real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively." I don't think one can get an "understanding how things work" without one showing him how in a non-adversarial setting. Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Its a good idea what Bgwhite recommends, ask someone first before creating a redirect or moving a page, if I was doing wrong or I'm doing wrong I think I'll understand the problems and errors what I was doing in the past. I've learned from Bgwhite so much, he helped me a lot and I respect him and all of you here but I'll suggest to give me time first and let me go on the good way. Eventually you'll see my improvement, I can guarantee that. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the solution is simple - don't make redirects and discuss page moves first (ideally with the film project)? Yes? This is the way forward for everyone, right? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest, having read the entire screed, that CA be mentored actively to ensure that he understands. During this period we can expect a decreasing volume of errors. However, if the willingness he expresses to ask first shows signs of weakening, and if the behaviour of poor moves et al reappears, the community should take a further view. Fiddle Faddle 08:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How can we know you're being truthful? In all of the previous discussions on your actions, you said you'd comply with what the editor asked you to do and then not do it. You had been warned numerous times not to and yet continued. You even kept doing it during the course of this conversation. Until I see it for myself, I don't think I can believe you. Rusted AutoParts 16:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How can someone be terrible at creating redirects? Into the Woods is another example of your recklessness. You moved it so you could own it, it was deleted, I recreated it, then you took it again, and again was deleted. Even if Lugnuts or BG stand in your corner, there is still quite a few people who feel it best to remove you from the project. And considering our history, I feel it's for the best as well. Rusted AutoParts 17:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are trying to make me angry now RAP, then you are going to fail but for your information, Bgwhite and Lugnuts are only helping and doing what is best for all, they aren't emotional decision makers like you. At-least I don't abuse editors here like you did and its just the articles moving problem which will be solved soon with good and best reason. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've advised Assassin to stay away from movies for a few months and work on something else. Unfortunately, looks like Assassin has worked on movies the past few days. Assassin, could you stop. At the bare minimum, it's not a good idea to work on movies while your movie edits are under question. Unless I missed something, I don't see any page moves or redirects created for a few days.
      Rusted AutoParts (like your name), from Assassin's and your talk page, it looks like you and him have had some "fun" for awhile. You two clearly can't play together. It's almost to a point where an interaction ban between you needs to be put in place. Rusted, you should walk away.
      Assassin are you willing:
      1. To not make ANY redirects or page moves without asking Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties.
      2. You must ask until Lugnuts, me or someone acceptable by all parties feels you understand the procedures and are able to do redirects and page moves correctly.
      3. Doing ANY redirect or page move without asking will result in a ban from making these kinds of edits. The length of the ban will be up to the admin.
      Assassin, I have a feeling Rusted will be watching your edits. Bgwhite (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not making any moves and redirects now, just working on films (which I think I'm doing good now, if there is any problem tell me please). And Bgwhite YES I'm agreed with you on your conditions. I'll not make any redirect or move without asking you, Lugnuts or someone other. And let RAP watch my edits, I don't have to afraid of him when I'll be doing good. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 10:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not trying to get you angry, I'm merely inputting my opinion on the situation. And it's really not helping when you constantly WP:Assume bad faith on my part. It's not as simple as giving him conditions to abide by. He had been messaged by several editors requesting he cease with his actions and he didn't. My final say in this is simply don't expect to be let off the hook so easily. I won't be watching your edits, the only edits I will see of yours are the contributions you make to the articles in my watch list. I don't abuse editors, I make it known what they're doing is wrong. I only get frustrated when they continue what they're doing, which is unfortunately what you're doing. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry RAP but I was doing and don't get frustrated now we should be good to each other if we want to help Wikipedia and each other. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Just saw Lugnuts and Betty Logan's talk pages. This needs a resolve now. Rusted AutoParts 15:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My next move will be to levy a long block on Captain Assassin. I'm loth to do an indef, unless (1) someone is pretty blatantly abusing the wiki, e.g. vandalism or spamming or copyvios, or (2) someone repeats disruptive behavior after an initial long block. Should Captain Assassin return from this block and continue the disruption, an indefinite block will quickly be in order. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't completely understand what he's saying, either; I've done my best, but it's difficult. As I told him, his unblock request and discussion make me even more solidly convinced that he's either unable or unwilling to participate in a useful manner. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • From my reading, it appears that he believes that Bgwhite set up some conditions for CA's editing so as not to be blocked, and CA believes that he has followed those conditions. The problem for me is this doesn't seem to be exactly confirmed from the discussion on Bgwhite's talk page, and Bgwhite himself has said that he would block CA if he did certain things. Also, CA has on a number of occasions during the course of this thread pledged not to do something specific, and has then gone on to do something related, but not the exact specific thing, or to be disruptive in another manner entirely. I'm fairly certain that a language barrier is a major part of the problem, accounting for the WP:IDHT-quality of any discussion with CA, but there also seems to be an unwillingness on CA's part to untangle what he doesn't understand. These are reasons why I thought a WP:CIR block was a reasonable step, but it has to be said that, at some point, the unwillingness or inability to understand and communicate becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling. WP:AGF would have us give CA the benefit of multiple doubts, but it looks to me that he may have run out of rope, and should retire to edit his native language's Wikipedia, if there is one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      1. In May, CA created a redirect of Fifty Shades of Grey (film) to the book.
      2. On August 12, Vintage Feminist created the article Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film) from a userspace draft via AfC.
      3. On August 14 at 20:53 pm, CA copied the (2014 film) article to (film) article.
      4. Also at 20:53, CA deleted the (2014 film) article and made a redirect to point to the (film) article.
      5. At 21:00, CA contacted Vintage Feminist telling about an article that was already there and CA would have the histories merged.
      6. At 21:03, CA reverted himself on both articles.
      7. At 21:08, CA contacted Lugnuts about what he did. The conversation.
      8. At 21:12, CA contacted me about what he did.
      9. In the end, whatever motives CA had, what he was trying to do ended up being the final results.
      • CA did not live up to the conditions as CA did do a redirect. While he didn't technically do a move, this is essentially what he was trying to do. CA did reverse himself and told Lugnuts and I before anybody noticed. CA did contact the original author of the article and talked about a history merge.
      • My impression was he goofed, probably out of hold habits. He did reverse course before anybody noticed and because of this, I did not block him, but did say I would next time.
      • Six month ban is an extreme in this case. I don't believe there was any ill intentions or out to seek glory. He did alert when he realized he goofed up. He did contact Vintage Feminist and told them correctly what should happen. Unless I've missed something, I don't see any other problems with his contributions over the past few days. He did violate the conditions, so if a ban should be enacted, I see one in the 2-4 week range. An interaction ban between Rusted AutoParts and CA should also happen. Both of them can't play with each other. Rusted has already been banned for edit warring and fear both will be banned again if they don't stop. Bgwhite (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't quite see what a six month block will accomplish either. If it is a competence issue, then it's not going to make him more competent in that time, so we just delay the problem rather than address it. Page moves are clearly best left to people who know what they are doing, and Captain Assassin clearly doesn't. There are two realistic options here as I see it, you either indefinitely block him, or you topic ban him from: i) creating articles/redirects ii) moving articles iii) cutting and pasting between articles iv) renaming/split/merge discussions i.e we need to totally remove him from this particular area. Personally I don't think we should exercise the first option unless we try the second first, and then we can observe his competence in other areas of Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As I said above, indefinite blocks should be for those who are blatantly abusing the wiki or for those who have already failed to improve despite substantial amounts of time blocked. This isn't blatant vandalism or copyvios, and Assassin previously had only a twelve-hour block. This is basically a two-part solution: either it's the warning that scares him into caring about our standards, or it's the warning that demonstrates that he can't be scared into caring about our standards, but either way it avoids six months of disruption. Bgwhite's conditions for CA's editing mean that Bgwhite wouldn't block if CA avoided certain things; conditions don't mean that an admin is unable to block based on a community discussion. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I fail to see where an extreme six month ban is warranted when a shorter ban accomplishes the same thing. I also fail to see where anything near consensus was found for such a long ban. I'm not arguing against a ban, as I've mentioned above. But, this seems retributive. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite". A short term block (not "ban") is wholly appropriate - when there is reason to believe that the situation that led to the block can be resolved by the time the ban expires. If there is no indication of a time period within which improvement can be done, then a long block, or even an indef, is wholly appropriate - it could be lifted tomorrow if the situation is resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      One of problems is that when anything happens CA says "I'll stop... See I've stopped", but then the disruption switches to something else, so it's hard to take his current pleas seriously - they may be heartfelt, but CA doesn't seem to be able to follow through on them. Perhaps the solution might be a conditional unblock on a short leash, with mandatory mentoring? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Infobox French commune TfD

      Please add a TfD tag, ASAP, as requested at Template talk:Infobox French commune#TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Premature RFC

      WP:FOUR has been contentious of late with people proposing new criteria for the award. Recently, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award was opened. Now, what I believe to be a premature RFC was opened. There is talk of having new criteria at WP:FOUR. I have been attempting to identify all the articles that would have to be rereviewed before hosting an RFC on the issue. I have been drafting the RFC since August 1. Now User:Khazar2 who does not seem to know the issues is jumping in with a premature RFC. Because he does has not been involved and does not know the issues, he views my attempt to determine which articles are at issue as spurious "data collection" and he does not understand some of the other issues. I am not even sure if he understands all the articles will have to be rereviewed if he changes the criteria (to something like anyone involved in the first 24 hours). Is it possible to shut that RFC down until the MFD is complete and we have an understanding of what articles are at issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      With respect, this complaint just screams of the same WP:OWN issues that you already face in this area. Someone beat you to the punch, and did so without requiring a massive proposal for an RFC that is framed as much in your favour as you think you can get away with. Resolute 18:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you see no possibility that you two can work together on this? It seems unwise to close one RfC down only to immediately open a new RfC. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In direct response to your question, I am willing to respond to feedback about the RFC, but don't think a new RFC will be opening up immediately. I doubt we will know the articles at issue before September unless a kind bot operator steps in. The MFD will certainly last a few more days and probably another week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In all honesty, it seems that there is a faction that is very intent on new set of criteria which would necessitate that all articles be rereviewed. No articles have been reviewed for the criteria that they propose. I would like to encourage them to create their own award and let this one police itself. Then my RFC could get feedback on the award related to the 800 or so articles that have been reviewed for the long-established criteria. Is there a way to encourage the people who want to create a new award just to go off and do it rather than try and impose it on this one. I doubt people involved in the current award are going to review the articles for the new criteria. I certainly am not and I have done 90% of the reviews for the current award. The people who have been awarded the award may not be awarded it for the new criteria. Can't we just ask them to create their own award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunatly, Tony, I have to agree with Resolute here: this arises from your acting as if you own WP:FOUR. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The RfC which has been launched is a massive improvement over what Tony was developing. Nick-D (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      A little request

      Done. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Could someone delete Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the US Department of Labor after making a null edit to the fully protected {{Include-USGov}}? Armbrust The Homunculus 23:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Arbitration motions regarding Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and Lecen

      The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

      1) Cambalachero (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

      2) MarshalN20 (talk · contribs) and Lecen (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

      Should one of these users violate this restriction, the user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, then to arbitration enforcement, and then to the Arbitration Committee.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this

      Merge proposition closure

      Can someone unrelated come to close the merge proposition? It is opened for 3 weeks, since 1st of August, it is more then enough.

      Thanks in advance for help! :) --WhiteWriterspeaks 11:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Can an admin have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter D Matthews‎ and the legal threat made by Bilda1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who may well be a sock). LGA talkedits 20:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      non-admin commentClear legal threat. I have reverted it from the relevant page and now we just need to wait for the block. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I've blocked them, there really is no other way to interpret that statement other then as an unambiguous legal threat. There is also nothing at the AfD or article that looks libelous. I've also removed about half the article text as a copyvio. Probably could go G12 on the article, but as its already at AfD, I held off on that. Monty845 21:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not quite sure whether the new account and the original author of the article are socks of each other. In any case, if he really wants the AfD gone, I wouldn't be averse to doing him the favour and courtesy-blank it, if somebody would be so kind and snow-close it and salt the article in return. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I am about to head out for the day; but this evening it is my intention to file a SPI on George134 with Bilda1 as the sock and ask for a CU to take a look. LGA talkedits 21:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
       Done. Deor (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Appeal of topic ban by Jc37 that lacked community consensus

      I started this on ANI, but was told to bring it here instead. Please don't list "forum shopping" as one of my crimes.....

      Jc37 just declared a community consensus to topic ban, based on the now archived discussion at the top of the page. [14] There is no such consensus.

      The definition of consensus: "the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". At least half the editors wanting a topic ban are involved in the underlying dispute. Without them, there is nothing close to a consensus. The short list: FutureTrillionaire (who canvassed, promised to withdraw his support for a ban to make up for canvassing, and then argued to ban anyway), Cliftonian, Quadell, Johnuniq, Not here anymore, Stfg, and Laser Brain. All of these editors have edited the articles covered by the ban in opposition to my edits, or opposed my view prior to the ban proposal.

      Regardless of whether you would have supported the topic ban, this is just a matter of respecting the rules. Please uphold the rules. After excluding involved editors, there simply is not a consensus.

      There were other improprieties.

      The ban proposal only came about because FutureTrillionaire canvassed Jeppiz, in violation of rules. Jeppiz had three times before proposed to ban me. (Nobody else has ever proposed banning me). Sure enough, after canvassing Jeppiz and immediately getting a ban proposal, FutureTrillionaire immediately supported it.

      Even aside from all this, there is some odd accounting. Were the editors who supported something other than a ban, such as an RFC or ArbCom, considered as neutral or as opposing a ban?

      There is also the editor, Not here anymore, who created an account soely dedicated to opposing my view (and supported a ban).

      Finally, it was out of the blue. The last new support for banning was 4 days old. I had done nothing disruptive since then (or, in my opinion ban-worthy prior to that).

      I would like an accounting of how consensus was determined in this case. It doesn't make sense. It simply does not meet the official definition of consensus found in the banning policy, which stipulates editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute . Strangesad (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      The question was whether the previous community discussion produced a consensus of uninvolved editors, and if so, how. I wasn't proposing a new ban discussion. Strangesad (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You read the entire thing but never participated in it? Strangesad (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=569174371"