Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin Gorman (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 20 July 2015 (→Regarding {{u|Nick}} (I initially posted this way too early): new section). 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/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

      (Initiated 23 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Max von Sydow#RfC on nationality in the lead

      (Initiated 156 days ago on 7 June 2024) discussion effectively ceased on 19 June 2024 with arguably enough difference of opinion to require an uninvoved close. Thanks! Draken Bowser (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 92 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]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPathtalk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

      (Initiated 7 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
      CfD 0 0 0 0 0
      TfD 0 0 2 0 2
      MfD 0 0 2 5 7
      FfD 0 0 2 2 4
      RfD 0 0 21 11 32
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 October 9#Template:Chapter disambiguation pages

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 28 September 2024) No new comments in the last week or two. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Plastikspork. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

      (Initiated 298 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 26 October 2024) Request an admin or very confident closer sorts this out. Controversial subject, and although consensus may be found, it is also necessary to close an out of process AfD now started [[1]] that was started to confirm the merge discussion. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It's a messy situation, but I argue that the most logical thing to do now is treat this as a deletion discussion, to be evaluated at AfD (ignoring the filer's framing as a merge discussion). — xDanielx T/C\R 15:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please note that the out of process AfD was procedurally closed. This discussion still awaiting close. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Closure Review

      This is a request to review the close at Talk:Grand_Theft_Auto_V#Merger_proposal to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion.

      The closure appears to have been made based on the opinion of the editor that closed it rather than the actual consensus. As I said when talking to the editor that closed it, I am aware that consensus is not determined simply by counting heads but there are significantly more editors in support of the merger than against it, and neither side cited any rules. Mainline421 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Overturn and merge as per consensus - and I will tell you for why: The closer concentrated mainly on sourcing/notability of the re-release, however that was addressed clearly by the support voters. Demonstrated notability means that a subject *can* have its own article, not that it *should* have one. In this case the support merge group clearly demonstrated that a re-release of the game for a later console can easily be incorporated into the original article. Its just not that different a product *its the same game*. There are differences but if we had different articles for re-releases of all media.... At best it merits two paragraphs with a list of the major changes and its reception. Secondly a number of the oppose votes are along the lines of 'otherstuffexists' which is not a valid reason for not merging. Lots of other stuff exists. Often those articles have their own reasons, or often, no one has got around to propose merging/deleting them. On the whole, the support merge group had both stronger arguments and none that are against policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      ANI is not the place for this. As I previously stated, the closure isn't something I made based on my own opinion. If you look again, another editor did cite that the re-release meets WP:GNG, and WP:Article size was also brought up (even if indirectly). Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      According to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures this is exactly the place to bring a challenge, I'm not making an opinion on the close but just pointing that out. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Snuggums, as a general rule, whenever someone makes a claim like "ANI is not the place for this", they should specify where they think the right place is. Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard". I am also a bit uncomfortable with the claim you made at User_talk:SNUGGUMS#Closure_Of_Merger_Discussion that "one compelling reason can override multiple weaker reasons". While technically true, and often invoked when there are a lot of "I llke it/don't like it" !votes, in this case it appears that those who opposed the merge were well aware of the "compelling reason" and did not find it compelling, even if you did. In such cases the opinion of the majority should not be disregarded. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd endorse that, because the only real alternative is "overturn to no consensus", and "no consensus" means the status quo ante should continue, so it has exactly the same effect as endorsing the close. I can't see any way to get to "overturn to merge" based on that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 23:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      137.150.100.205

      This IP has been adding a large amount of possibly copyrighted text to Wikipedia:Sandbox and User:Jumpingbean1212/sandbox. Can this be addressed? Thanks. Dustin (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Aftermath of massive edit wars

      I processed a request at WP:RFPP which resulted in three articles being fully protected and two editors blocked after I found them edit warring on the third article. After untangling the mess, I believe Brudder Andrusha tried to do a copy-paste move of FC Arsenal Kyiv to FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv [2] and ignored the copyright bot. [3] They then tried to redirect FC Arsenal-Kyiv, an article about the successor club to their new FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv. [4] 46.200.35.143 objected to all of this and a massive edit war was ensued (the histories of the articles will make your eyes bleed). I'm thinking two trouts should go to Brudder Andrusha - one for the copy-paste move and one for constantly telling the IP to "go register". Also, I think the new FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv should be deleted. When things calm down again, either FC Arsenal Kyiv will be moved to it (requiring it be deleted first) or it will be kept as a redirect to FC Arsenal-Kyiv (in which case we would be better off deleting the atrocious and unattributed history). Comments? --NeilN talk to me 03:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Wouldn't it be best to just delete everything created by this mess and return to the status quo ante bellum? --Jayron32 05:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that's what my proposal does. --NeilN talk to me 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      You should have a good reason in deleting FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv since that is the accepted and official name of the team by the Professional Football League of Ukraine. Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv page in PFL 198.24.6.155 (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I have made my policy-based reasons clear up above. --NeilN talk to me 15:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this Brudder Andrusha evading their block? Anyway, from what I can see the site of the Professional Football League of Ukraine does not seem to name the team as FC Arsenal-Kyiv Kyiv at all. They use the same formula for all their teams. They list the name of the team between quotation marks, followed by the location of the team. Since the name of the location is included in this team's name, it's actually mentioned twice. A clear misunderstanding. Tvx1 01:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Both remaining articles have been move protected so any move will have to be preceded by a discussion. --NeilN talk to me 01:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      All right, done. --NeilN talk to me 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

      This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      1. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is site-banned. She may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted.
      2. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Gun control topic, broadly construed.
      3. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing from one account. She must obtain the Committee's prior approval if she wishes to edit from a different account. She is prohibited from making edits without logging in.
      4. Subject to the usual exceptions, Lightbreather is prohibited from making any more than one revert to any page, except Lightbreather's own user space, in any 24-hour period.
      5. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing articles, their talk pages, and Lightbreather's user and user talk pages. Further, she may not edit articles in topics from which she is banned. She may post elsewhere only to respond to unambiguous criticism of her in dispute resolution fora. The default interaction-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. Should Lightbreather wish to initiate action against any user for whatever reason she may do so only by email to the Arbitration Committee.
      6. All interactions bans (i-bans) affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:
        1. Mike Searson (one-way)
        2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
        3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
        4. Sitush (one-way)
        5. Scalhotrod (two-way)
      7. The community is invited to create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment.
      8. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on improved trust and safety policies for the site.[5], [6] and the community is urged to offer what assistance it can.

      For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed
      As Beeblebrox says... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Resolved
       – For the moment anyway, IP blocked for a week. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      | right here with a threat to trace IP addresses too. I think someone needs a talking to ! KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 19:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      IP blocked; let an admin know if they jump to another IP, and the article can be semi-protected. As legal threats go, this is particularly lame; he's threatening to sue for defamation because we don't mention the person he's claiming to be in an article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      @Floquenbeam, note the IP resolves to a government agency (for the state of Florida). Not sure if this means anything in terms of blocking, but just thought to bring it to your attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The tricky blocks are for entities like the US Senate/Congress, UK Parliament, national governments, etc. I don't think there's any special consideration given to someone sitting in a state government office in Florida. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the heads up, Boris, but Florida is kind of a special place, and I doubt this would crack the Top 100 weird things to happen at the Florida Dept. of Health today. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Request for admin eyes on Jules Bianchi

      Just so everyone knows, it might be a good idea to keep some extra attention on Jules Bianchi for the next few days; he died in the last few hours from injuries suffered in his crash at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some pop-up vandalism as a result. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, we haven't seen any sort of vandalism, but instead an awful lot of edit warring over the date of his death. Zappa24Mati 05:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Privacy of trans people's original names

      An editor has posted trans activist Jazz Jennings' real first name as revealed by her father on TLC's I Am Jazz. Her original name has not been reported anywhere (save for a few anti-trans sites) even since the disclosure so I don't think it belongs here at all. See WP:BLPPRIVACY. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      Semiprotected for another month. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Protection isn't necessarily a bad idea, however not what I'm looking for. I wanted to know if anyonne else agreed the name should be removed. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Deadnaming people is unacceptable and I've removed it and deleted it per WP:BLPPRIVACY. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Do I correctly understand that this name was revealed on a TV program that millinons of people watch? If so, there is no privacy issue whatsoever. BMK (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, possibly. I don't know if that made it into the actual programming although it was in the promotional preview. No secondary sources actually picked up on it so it is irrelevant for an encyclopedia. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      (non-administrator comment) Yeah, protecting the page and deleting the revisions was a little over-the-top in my opinion. The parents made her birth name public information on a nationally-broadcast TV series; and the material clearly was not added with the intention to harm the subject, and last I saw it it was not presented in a defamatory manner. I do agree with Mark Schierbecker, though, that if this was not reported on by secondary sources and it's not common knowledge, it doesn't warrant inclusion. But I think somebody overreacted just a little bit here. Chase (talk | contributions)

      Regarding Nick (I initially posted this way too early)

      • I have filed a numberof AE requests against Eric in the past. I would have to wikistalk myself to come up with at an exact number,but I'd guess two or three in total. Today I filedan AE/R against Eric for a clear violation of his civility probation. After I filed my initial report, Nick posted this phttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=672196331 post]. In it he accused me of using WP:AE requests to conduct a campaign of harrassment against Eric, and stated that "I think, if I see Kevin lodge one more arbitration enforcement request against Eric, I'm going to indefinitely block Kevin and to hell with the consequences and resulting arbitration case - this is the most blatant and disgusting targeting of one individual by an administrator I've seen in 10 years here."
      • I am not - currently - asking for any administrative behavior betaken againt Nick - simply to have it reinforced by other users and administrators that not only is lodging a valid AE request not a form of harrassment, but that threatening to indefinitely block me if I put forward one more AE request against (totally ignoring WP:INVOLVED etc,) a particular user is in fact itself conduct unbecoming of an an administrator. I'd rather avoid the messiness of another arb case, and just have a clear consensus that this form of intimidation is absolutely inappropriate. I'll drop a warning on Nick's page shortly. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=672221939"