Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - already the oldest thread on the page, and at the time of this comment, there has only been one comment in the past nine days. starship.paint (RUN) 03:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 142 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 93 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 60 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 46 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 38 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 37 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 30 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 20 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 0 days' time on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	13	32
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	22	48	70
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 55 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 54 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 21 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 112 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 106 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 99 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 92 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 29 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 17 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 13 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 12 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Kent W. Colton Talk Page

Upon attempting to create a talk page for the Kent W. Colton article, only administrators are able to do so. Since an article page has been created, a talk page also needs to be created that all users can access. Here's the link: Talk:Kent W. Colton. It appears that the following WikiProject template should be added to the page: {{WikiProject Biography|living=yes}}. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

1RR at Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Shooting of Trayvon Martin was under 1RR first to resolve a wheel war and then to resolve edit waring from March 27 to June 15. After it expired, there has been a moderate amount of edit warring, see [1]. I think reinstating 1RR might encourage greater discussion, but before reinstating it, I wanted to get consensus here. MBisanz ^talk 23:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe MBisanz is overstating any problems. Our general policy is 3RR and unless specific issues can be brought along with the request here (not vague generalizations), it seems reasonable that the 3RR policy, should be the standing policy on this article, like the rest of Wikipedia. -- Avanu (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was suffering major problems not that long ago. I'd be willing to let it slip back to normal, unless/until the problems recur. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I need to notify any editors about my posting here, but a problem on the page IMO is that removing things that have been there awhile is in a way like reverting, and to take something out that's been in there awhile because it doesn't seem important is a very low bar versus the high bars to add something. It's also quite subjective when it's removing things that are properly sourced, relevant, etc. I really haven't seen any guidelines or rules about it, but removing things for the reason that they seem unimportant maybe should be subject to a rule like 1RR or 3RR, as if they are reverts, not just straightforward edits. Removing 5 things in a day really isn't the same thing as adding 5 things in a day even though both are edits. Removing things became an issue on this page after an editor who hadn't been working on it checked the length and said it was too long. That editor hasn't been back to the page, so isn't involved in this matter, but since then there's been a push to reduce things, but I've been suggesting discussing whether splitting it at least once or reducing it would be the better option. But taking things out that were acceptable can cause at least as many controversies as putting things in, especially when it isn't about relevance, sourcing, etc., but more like opinion about what seems important to different people. Psalm84 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I also want to add that I did notify another editor, Minor, who has been involved in this matter. Psalm84 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• support reinstating 1RR if current editing behavior continues. There have been constant reverts since 1RR expired. There are a couple of editors who are extremely protective of the article. I'm ok with giving it a bit of time to see if things don't improve, but if it doesn't then I think 1RR should be reinstated. Minor4th 02:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think both Minor4th and Psalm84 have been very collegial and positive editors with regard to the article. I simply don't think special cases need to exist for articles unless a particular need has been clearly identified. People are not discouraged from making reverts, its simply a part of editing. The problem is only when they begin to 'edit war' and for Wikipedia's purposes, this is usually (but not always) defined as when it hits 3 reverts (could be fewer). But honest mistakes and honest improvements get reverted all the time, and I would say unless there are editors who are simply intransigent (those people can get a trout), then we're doing fine on that article. -- Avanu (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• 3RR is the general guideline and should be applied to this article as well. The example given above by MBisanz is just a small slice and not representative of the overall editing behavior of this article. The above example was resolved through discussion and we will continue to work towards improving this article through discussion and consensus.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• 3RR should be fine. Yes I've seen a few edit wars, but in the end it's been worked out. I belive the editors of this article can work together without administrator intervention. Richard-of-Earth (talk)
• 3RR - I think the training wheels can stay off. People are sorting things out reasonably well at the moment. If warring does heat up again, then reconsider 1RR. ArishiaNishi (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Just to be clear "no edit warring" is the rule, 3RR is just an outside metric of that rule. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump

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

---

Background

• Will (2012-05-05). "On Wikipedia and Breanna Manning". Liberal Will. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  • 2012-06-18: "As the writer of that blog post and someone who would rather refer to Manning as 'she', […]" — Sceptre
• 2012-05-05: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#Breanna Manning
• 2012-05-05: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive151#Breanna Manning
• 2012-05-05: User talk:Sceptre#Manning
• 2012-05-05: "If you're trying to suggest he's male, despite all that, then you're either dense or bigoted." — Sceptre
• 2012-05-06: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Fundamental problems with MOS:IDENTITY
• 2012-05-07: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#AndyTheGrump
• 2012-06-21: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#AndyTheGrump
• 2012-06-21: "This topic is closed. I will not allow Sceptre to violate Wikipedoa WP:BLP policy on my talk page in pursuit of his deranged and obnoxious campaign to 're-gender' Bradley Manning against his own express wishes. Sceptre, fuck of and troll elsewhere, you repulsive little lying bigot." — AndyTheGrump
• 2012-06-21: "allow me to apologise for any indirectness there Sceptre, allow me to say, from me to you, fuck off and troll elsewhere. Am I being clear and direct ?" — Penyulap
• 2012-06-25: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log#Current sanctions
• 2012-06-25: User talk:Sceptre#BLP Ban imposed
• 2012-06-27: User talk:Sceptre#June 2012

The links above were added by someone else. Arcandam (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please unblock users Sceptre and AndyTheGrump. Unblocking both is the fairest (least unfair) solution at this moment in space and time. Arcandam (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock requests are to be made by the editor, not by proxy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? Do you have a link? Arcandam (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC) p.s. Sceptre's unblock must go via the ban appeals subcommittee BTW.

Block reviews can be requested by any user, not just the one who was blocked. See this subsection of the blocking policy page. That said, it also says that appeals typically should be made at AN, not AN/I. Might I suggest moving the thread? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Thanks for pointing that out. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe Sceptre is blocked, just banned. And I think a topic probation, as suggested in the discussion, would have been a more fair 'punishment' than the ban that was enacted. -- Avanu (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You may want to double-check that. He is both blocked and banned. Arcandam (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow.... just unbelievably shitty of SarekofVulcan to do that. Seriously, that kind of cocky ass-hat stuff is why he has no business being an admin. He simply amps up the conflict instead of working to resolve problems. Sceptre didn't need to be kicked while down. I didn't agree with Sceptre's previous conduct, but really, this is just BS. -- Avanu (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, Avanu -- start the recall, or STOP the personal attacks. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, my language above was strong, but hardly comparable I think to blocking a guy in the manner you just had. You've had numerous run-ins with people over the years and a large contingent of people who dislike your tactics. I suggest that you simply resign or, even better, just avoid using the tools for a while; the process you refer to on your page seems overly convoluted. My personal feeling is that you lack self-control when your emotions are running high, and you make snap decisions that even you would question later. If you were forced to act like a normal user for a while, even by your own choice, I think you might realize that for most of us, the only option is patience. I'll reduce the level of derision in my comments, for your sake, but if I see your actions stepping over the line, I will let you know in plain and unambiguous language. Fair enough? -- Avanu (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No, you'll "reduce the level of derision" BECAUSE THAT IS WIKIPEDIA POLICY. If you don't like working the same way everyone else does, try Citizendium. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, and as for the other 99% of my comment....? I was actually trying to communicate why I am unhappy with your actions. (And please don't lecture me about WP:Civility, Mr. Pot. Thanks, Mr. Kettle.) -- Avanu (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre's previous conduct was troutworthy (and in my opinion also worthy of a topic ban), but we were having a productive conversation on his talkpage. He was not refusing to get the point and there were no IDHT problems. The goal of the topic ban was not to prevent us from having a productive conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock of Sceptre. While the reference to the issue on his talkpage was technically a violation of the ban, it was a first such violation; failing to realize that the ban applies to one's own talkpage too is a frequent mistake and one easy to make, and we should also take into account that it was during a discussion that was explicitly brought to Scepter's talkpage by an editor from the opposite side of the debate. In these circumstances, a simple reminder would have been far more appropriate than an immediate block, especially a block of this length and without warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nota bene: In our discussion on Sceptre's talkpage none of the problems that caused the topicban (IDHT, refusal to get the point) occured. We were having a productive discussion, if we are unable or not allowed to do that then it is impossible to improve this encyclopedia. I voted for a topic ban on articles related to Manning, this is not an article. I won't hesitate to request a block if Sceptre deserves it, I am not a Sceptre fanboy and I disagree with Sceptre about a couple of things, but for now the most reasonable solution is to unblock Sceptre so we can continue the conversation on Sceptre's talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – How the Bradley Manning article got to GA status, despite that it woefully fails criterion #5 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria, is beyond me. It should be delisted. --MuZemike 05:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good point, I agree. Arcandam (talk) 06:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Support unblock of Sceptre per Fut.Perf., although I didn't realize that a topic ban of this sort was applicable to one's own talkpage. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 06:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I didn't know this either. I have notified Sarek about this thread. -- Dianna (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - When Sarek does address this, I believe he needs to agree to fully explain the BLPBAN in plain and clear language, and be willing to warn and explain when necessary if Sceptre happens to step close to the line again, alternately, Sarek could simply explain his ban fully, plainly, and clearly, and allow other administrators to do the actual enforcement, rather than biting someone who I believe actually wants to follow the community consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 06:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that the biggest issue was that a number of people in the community thought the topic ban we were establishing meant editing BLP articles and their talk pages, especially Manning, not mentioning any of those on Sceptre's own talk page. We may need to clarify that ban as a community. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 06:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Unblock Sceptre and trout all responsible for this ridiculous farce. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock of Sceptre; it's likely he didn't fully understand the ban. Cardamon (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Question: I'm not sure I follow the logic of the original ban closing, and don't really know the process. Are blocks/bans typically implemented by a vote, or only for sensitive areas? Does the "weight of the arguments" system used on other parts of the wiki not apply, and how are sensitive areas defined? Thanks, Sazea (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock, 100%. I didn't know that the topic ban stretched as far as a civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page, and many above me also didn't know that, so no doubt Sceptre was also unaware. A warning would've been a much better way to handle this. Far, far too trigger-happy. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - FYI, I was going to make this unblock, but it appears Sceptre has not yet recognized that he is prohibited from making such speech even on his talk page. This worries me: I don't want to see some of the IDHT behavior extended here, and then have this issue come up again in a month or so, which I think it might. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Wikipedia as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits. copied by request AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose both The blocks were subject to significant discussion at ANI. Andy opposes the request, and Sceptre's CANNOT be unblocked here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Uhm, where was Sceptre's block discussed previously? Also, I disagree a valid unblock consensus cannot be reached here. AN has always been a valid forum for that sort of thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment In this diff and this one, I made it clear to Spectre that the topic ban included discussion of Manning's gender identity, not just article edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree that those diffs make anything clear at all. They make clear that AN/I, and presumably the rest of WP space, is also in the topic ban. They do not make clear that Sceptre's own talk page is in the topic ban. I think this is actually the nexus of the problem - you think you've explained something succinctly and clearly, but to Sceptre and a number of others, it was as clear as mud. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• The question of whether Arcandam could make this request at all has come up, as the policy document no longer states that a third party request may be made at this noticeboard. So, the request is inappropriate.
• Discussion of a clarification to the policy page is here. on the policy talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 14:09, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of support (akin to 'seconds' in parliamentary procedure), I think it can be safely assumed that this request is something the community supports discussion on. Additionally, given the fact that "Any user may request a block", it seems reasonable that the converse is reasonable as well, i.e. 'Any user may request a unblock'. -- Avanu (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As I have written on the talkpage of the policy page, 14 minutes before you used the word 'assumed', "I think it warrants a mention [on the policy page] as there are differing assumptions on the matter." per it's removal from the page, indicating that you are mistaken. Penyulap ☏ 14:40, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That's a moot point. Sceptre obviusly did make an unblock request himself. Given that fact, it doesn't matter who brought it here and in what form. Let's keep irrelevant process bureaucracy out of this thread here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're assuming it's fine, Andy is suggesting it's not, on the policy page it's not, so how does this not support the question of clarifying the issue ? Penyulap ☏ 14:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this should go forward anyway, and WP:IAR that policy because it doesn't make sense. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

with the division of editors on either side, it seems common-sense to fix the darn policy. Penyulap ☏ 15:28, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is discussion-worthy -- while the topic ban was clearly validly imposed in my view, I acknowledge that this enforcement action wasn't as clearly supportable. Otoh, I haven't seen anything that's made me change my mind yet. "banned from edits relating to Manning" is about as clear as you get -- I'm quite confused by the editors above claiming it isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem, Sarek. People in the discussion were !voting, but you had TWO concurrent discussions and people weighing in at different levels. For example, the two editors who led a call for bans said:

Anyone willing to brandish WP:BLPBAN and topic ban Sceptre from making edits relating to Manning? Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

How do people feel about a topic ban for Sceptre from articles related to Bradley Manning, broadly construed? I'd support such a ban. – NULL ‹talk›‹edits› 23:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice in the original post, the differing levels of each post... the latter one isn't indented, and Nobody Ent claims to be refactoring the two requests under one section. In addition, the various comments of people later show that they weren't (for most of them) specifically picking one or the other, just saying "Support" or "Support topic ban". Finally, when you closed it at AN/I, you simply said "BLPBAN imposed", but didn't make a summation of exactly what the ban was going to be or how it was to be enforced (even the WP:BLPBAN page says "articles", it doesn't say everything). Even the template on Sceptre's page that said "topic-banned from edits relating to Bradley Manning, broadly construed", since that contains a link to an article, it can easily be seen to be meant to apply to the linked article only. In short, it is about communication first and clear *and* helpful warnings later. -- Avanu (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, the notification template informing Sceptre of his ban (placed by Sarek) says "Further violations of the BLP policy will result in you being banned from editing" (notice it does not say 'Blocked'). Another good cause to warn first, before acting with tools. -- Avanu (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue to be wikilawyering over the wording of standard warning templates. Take it up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log (redir from Template talk:BLP Spec Sanction) if you think it's unclear.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu beat me to it, but that was what I was going to say, more or less. Especially the part about the link to the Bradley Manning article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support unblock because I don't see evidence that Sceptre was willing to violate his topic ban and, as such, I believe he should just have been issued a warning. As a side note, to avoid these problems, when I impose a topic ban, I always point out that the editor in question is prohibited from making any edits relating to X across all namespaces (i.e. everywhere on Wikipedia). It helps to avoid confusion, in my opinion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock - largely per Salvio above. Sceptre overstepped his topic ban by posting to his talk page and he may not have been aware that it also came under the topic ban. Having said that, he seriously needs to back away from the Manning article and its related articles, and just move onto something else - Alison ^❤ 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support unblock on account of some confusion about scope and assuming good faith, with the understanding that, going forward, the topic ban includes all namespaces, and further violations will result in extended blocks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

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

A request for comment has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:52, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Procedural discussion

as it is not related to any editor, I figure I can ask the question, should block review requests be combined, or considered separately Penyulap ☏ 12:58, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

which means the question doesn't belong here, except where it relates to these two editors, oops ! Penyulap ☏ 13:00, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'll have no part or opinion on either matter as I am involved clearly on one side, also, as a disclaimer, I edited (created) the policy section that has been linked to. I simply wish for everyone else to have their say here with as little confusion as possible, so I have separated the issues. all of which can sill be discussed, but with more clarity. Penyulap ☏ 12:49, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Naturally, anyone is free to revert if they feel up to the challenge of tallying both sides, counting single 'oppose' or 'support' with 'both' !votes and so on, good luck guys and girls ! Penyulap ☏ 12:54, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, no offense, but I've collapsed them again. I find it far more confusing to have a new section started in the middle of an ongoing discussion. Also, the part about AndyTheGrump was obviously a non-starter anyway, given his own statement, so I believe it will neither make for much confusion in the original format, nor would an extra section about him be useful at this stage. I'm also not fond of having the sections subdivided into "support" and "oppose" vote sections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No offence taken, I'll just suggest that combining an unblock request for the two editors will be every bit as satisfying to the community, and editors involved, as the combined discussion of their original block. Penyulap ☏ 14:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Combining a unblock request for two editors blocked several days apart for different reasons doesn't strike me as terribly satisfying... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Confused the hell out of me. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

I've unblocked Sceptre as there seems to be a consensus that Sarek overstepped and Sceptre should be unblocked. I don't see much discussion related to Andy's block, so I've left that in place for the time being. I hope this helps to resolve things, but if it doesn't, another admin can of course revert me. I'm not perfect. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the review! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It'd probably be best to unblock Andy as well now. I think everyone is clear where they stand. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, no, don't unblock Andy. Andy has requested that he not be unblocked until he serves his term. The double unblock was proposed out of a misguided sense of fairness, believing that the blocks were for the same thing. They weren't. Sceptre's topic ban and Andy's block were for the same issue, but Sceptre's block was for a mistaken understanding of the scope of the topic ban. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Jorgath, it seemed like Andy was just blocked for fairness purposes so I've unblocked for the same. I've left messages for both. Again, if there's a clear consensus to re-block, then I will self-revert or another admin is welcome to revert. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fairness? Looks to me from the diffs above like it was persistent incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The timeline was as follows: Sceptre reported Andy for persistent incivility. Andy was found to have been persistently uncivil, and was blocked. A boomerang then hit Sceptre with a topic ban from an area in which they have a bad history, for provoking Andy. The block being reviewed was SarekOfVulcan's block of Sceptre for violating that topic ban in a way that Sceptre was unaware was a violation. The initial proposal suggested unblocking Andy too, out of fairness. Andy responded on his talk page with a request that was copied here, saying that he did not wish to be unblocked, mostly because he felt that he deserved it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I misread that portion of the situation. I'll restore Andy's block but I will leave my unblock of Sceptre; I think it should stand. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it should as well. The "fairness" equivalent of Andy's block is Sceptre's topic ban, which still stands, although it needs clarifying. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• - Three posts to Andy's block log for no effect - well done Keliana - in future take your time and stand by your decisions a bit more - I support Andy's unblock as you made it - both users unblocked - to unblock one is unfair - what Andy actually said in relation to this was, "Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Wikipedia as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits." - User:Sceptre is the primary problem here and he is unblocked. - Youreallycan 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I find that a highly disingenuous interpretation of the situation, Youreallycan. Andy was blocked for persistent incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was topic-banned for various reasons, including the one that provoked Andy's incivility to Sceptre. Sceptre was then blocked for violating that ban in a way that they didn't realize was a violation: a highly civil conversation on Sceptre's own talk page in which Sceptre was showing signs of overcoming their previous IDHT problems. That topic ban still stands, even though Sceptre is unblocked. If Andy requests an unblock on his talk page, I have no problem with that, but he shouldn't have been unblocked based on this discussion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Change to topic ban

Hey, I'd like, for specificity, to request that the topic ban be limited to "edits to articles and talk pages relating to Bradley Manning's gender identity"; there's a whole bunch of questions here where the topic ban is vague:

• Would I get blocked for editing Wikileaks or Julian Assange?
• Would I get blocked again for replying to Arcadanum on my talk page?
• Would I get blocked for referring to the content dispute? There are genuine issues with editor culture completely separate from the issue of Manning's gender identity, but which came up in the content dispute.

I would also ask kindly that an eye be kept on AndyTheGrump; obviously good faith BLP protection warrants a little leeway, but I am concerned that he's unable to contribute without living up to his username, which isn't conducive to improvement of the encyclopedia at all. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your topic ban specificity question, no, I wouldn't support that. In answer to the three specific examples: 1) Yes. 2) The proper response is "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." 3) Broadly construed, yes; if you want to talk about GID and LGBT in a way that in no way references Manning...maybe. In answer to the AndyTheGrump thing, he's serving out his block with dignity and class. If he says he can be civil from here on, we WP:AGF that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really? How is this difficult to grasp? Avoid discussing the content dispute, as that's inherently tied to Manning. And I'd suggest avoiding Wikileaks and Julian Assange to prevent any appearance of impropriety. Tread lightly if you want to continue editing LGBT & GID issues, as those are subjects you appear to have strong feelings about. Essentially, don't go near this subject at all, and you won't risk anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Yeah, this. I'd advise that you go be a good editor in some completely unrelated area for a while (I mean like a year, not a week), and show that you can work well, on a regular basis, with people who disagree with you. Then maybe you might be able to request the topic ban be lifted. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re #3 -- if the part of "editor culture" you're referring to is "only editors who know transgendered people should be editing in this area", then the answer is "Yes". Otherwise, Jorgath's "maybe" holds.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not "editors who know transgender people", it's "editors who are aware of how transgender issues should be handled". Would you want a young earth creationist making edits to Evolution? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sceptre, I strongly reccommend that you not pursue that question, or you will be repeating previously sanctioned behavior. Just - if it's in question at all whether it's under your ban, assume it is. Okay? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

So long as that YEC adheres to our policies on verifiability and NPOV, without constantly trying to push a YEC opinion on various talk pages, sure. Further, it's highly presumptuous of you to assume your criteria of "how transgender issues should be handled" is the correct one. That is the source of this whole fracas. I'd suggest now is the time to drop the stick.— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd still think it'd be unwise for YECs to edit that page, because without an understanding of the topic, you can't really contribute to a topic. This applies everywhere, really. I think it's a no-brainer that, for such a sensitive topic as LGBT issues, you do need a quick 101: MOS:IDENTITY favouring a person's self-identity to others' perceptions of the identity is no accident, it reflects medical, academic, and journalistic manuals of style (even if journalists don't follow it that much). Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose loosening topic ban at this point, given that Spectre's agreement to the topic ban promptly violated it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

When? -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Here. we're disregarding the sources by pretending that Manning never had issues with their gender identity.... specifically the quote "We do know [...] Manning had not asked people to refer to him with a female pronoun". It's not the same as "We do know [...] Manning had asked people not to refer to him with a female pronoun".... the discussion should be "Manning identified as female before being arrested, how should we treat that?" instead of "Does Manning identify as male or female?". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yea - User:Sceptre - you are banned from anything related on any article and any talkpage related to Manning - if you discus the subject anywhere on wiki you will be blocked immediately - is that clear enough for you ? - I Support - topic banning you from any WP:BLP transgender edit/comment/discussion - as per you edit history /off wiki activism COI - Youreallycan 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• We don't issue superinjunctions around here; people are always allowed to say something like Jorgath's suggestion, "I can't talk about that, I'm topic-banned." when someone asks them about banned topics, and we permit people to come to noticeboards and ask for their bans to be loosened or removed. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes indeed - User:Sceptre should email the banning admin or the highest committee if he has any questions regarding his topic ban - Youreallycan 20:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• @Nyttend: Actually I think at least ArbCom has issued at least one superinjunction, on User:PCPP. I'm not saying sure that regular admins should do the same, however. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - since SarekOfVulcan implemented the ban on Sceptre, he needs to be the one (and only one) making the clear statement of the scope and duration of the ban, as well as instructions or a link on appealing it at some future date if desired without violating the ban. I suggest that the specifics be posted here, on Sceptre's Talk page, and on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log page so that all editors are 100% clear on the scope and duration of the ban. -- Avanu (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its indefinite- a lifetime ban - appeal only to the highest committee - Youreallycan 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a matter for Sarek, not for anyone else, since he implemented it. The Ban was implemented as an exercise of Sarek's power as an Admin, and the particulars of it are governed by his will and interpretation of the consensus. -- Avanu (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, any time you'd like to read up on policy and figure out how things actually work around here, feel free. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

"figure out how things actually work around here"... isn't it clear? I mean its obvious, right? Nothing left to discuss, we just go on and on because things are so clear. :) OK, I get the joke......... -- Avanu (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question is this request to find which articles and subjects are ok to edit, like flower arrangement is ok, but Mardi gras is a worry, or is it a specific attempt to ask how to WP:GAME the community by asking the rules ? Penyulap ☏ 20:20, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  The former. The problem with "broadly construed" is that, someone may see the article List of transgender people as under the ban even if I'm not even thinking of anything related to Manning. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'd not consider that a violation, personally. And it would be harsh for an admin to block you for it. However; given that the problem at hand was specifically Manning, but generally topics of gender, you would probably be well advised to avoid that topic area. You committed some gross BLP violations in this case, for which we have had to limit you, and I still see a risk of you trying it again on another poor individual. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The gag order should be loosened. It's excessively officious and punitive. A user engaging in discussion on their own talk page, for example, about topics on which they're clearly well-informed, is hardly harmful to Wikipedia. Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• What benefit is there to article content to allow a policy violating topic banned user to continue to freely discuss the issue on his talkpage? Youreallycan 20:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Youreallycan on this point. Users easily could turn their own talk page into a form of "hate blog" about things they don't like, and it would be possible to misrepresent that page as a "wikipedia page" so that some less-than-well informed persons might think that it actually is the equivalent of an article. Me, for instance. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I see it like an escape valve. People who are emotionally invested in an issue, want to discuss that issue. A broad topic ban invites chipping at the edges, and wikilawyering on article pages. Better to make the ban broad wrt article and article talk, while allowing some discussion in an area that will only be seen by those looking for it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose loosening of ban at this time, based on the comments of others of similar views above, particularly taking into account the speed with which the ban was apparently violated. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic ban is not overly restrictive. Also throwing in a dig at another editor from the request is in bad taste. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The restriction was clear. Wikilawyering it is bull. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Partial Support I support allowing discussion on user talk page. If that becomes a "hate blog" that permission can be revisited, but I think user should have broad leeway on the talk pages associated with their user name. However, I still support the "broadly construed" aspects of the topic ban in article and article talk pages.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose a weakening of the restriction (i.e. I don't see a reason for relaxing it on non-article pages), but I don't think there's a reason for interpreting it as covering topics such as "Wikileaks or Julian Assange" too. The problems that occurred were rather narrowly restricted to a biographical detail regarding the personality of B. M., and as such were quite unrelated to the political affair in which that person happened to be involved. Under this perspective, I don't see any problems with Sceptre editing Wikileaks or related stuff, and I don't believe the current wording of the restriction covers that. On the other hand, I would caution against turning to anything that might be seen as agenda editing on other transgender-related pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I would like to know what "agenda editing on transgender-related pages" would be, as it has come up several times. Whereas the matter of Manning is something that can be debated, both from a source analysis perspective and an ethical perspective, for most trans BLPs it's clear cut: refer to them by their preferred gender and pronouns, treat them as human, et cetera, because it's unethical to act otherwise (and manuals of style for RSes agree on that) Sceptre ^(talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • What it means, basically, is "don't push the issue." If a gendered-pronoun-change is completely uncontroversial, as in no one would dispute it at all, go ahead. But if even one person begins to dispute it with you, you must drop it. Period. If you're right, someone will sort it out. Actually...I'd be willing to take a look in such a situation. If it's all right with the community (especially SarekOfVulcan), the approved course of action could be "Sceptre disengages, neutrally informs Sarek and I of situation on our talk pages, and I try to evaluate content question fairly while Sarek reviews Sceptre's actions." This obviously would not apply to Bradley Manning-related edits, but to other transgender-related pages. I think I'm pretty good at NPOV in trans issues, and I think I satisfy Sceptre and Roux's previous requests that evaluating editors be familiar with trans issues. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unvanishing ScienceApologist

Resolved

 – Per WP:SNOW, unvanishing performed by 'crat WilliamH, leaving unarchived for now in case any comments are yet to come. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#ScienceApologist, which shows the first instance (that we know of) of sockpuppetry on 10 December 2011, EdJohnston logged it as 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Since then, numerous SPI cases have come up, including an active one now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist.

User:ScienceApologist (aka: User:VanishedUser314159) seems to have been granted a right to vanish around 2008, then it was taken away two days later, then there was a lot of redactions and gnashing of teeth, with a final WP:RTV granted around March 2011. Jpgordon indef blocked the vanished user on 4 March 2011.[2]

It is clear that this user is not going to vanish. This means that all their past SPI cases and other edits are under a Vanisheduser name, courtesy blanked, which is inconvenient, at the very least. At this stage, after so many socks and opportunities, it appears that the courtesy vanishing should be taken back, and the full account restored, as the editor is clearly not acting in good faith and is continuing to be a disruption.

As a courtesy, I will be notifing those who may have been involved at an administrative level previously, including User:John Vandenberg, User:Steve Smith, User:EdJohnston and User:Nihonjoe. Feel free to notify anyone else that may have been involved previously.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that ScienceApologist be unvanished and the account be fully restored

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - SA still has the option of requesting unblock if he wants to return to normal editing. Apparenly he declines to do so. He should know that he can *either* edit or stay vanished but not both. More background on the recent socking can be found in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive. At present he uses a series of IPs (and probably one registered account, Hudn12 (talk · contribs)) to putter around with WP:FRINGE topics. His activity includes some edit warring on articles; he charges other people with socking, with apparently no sense of irony. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - and also for any other users with similar failed vanishing issues - like User:ChrisO . Good to see user User:Rlevse has done the correct thing - respect for that. Youreallycan 17:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The last time I had to look into this never-ending story I got RSI from all the clicking around. Ed, I don't think Joshua can understand irony; all the socking and the attendant split personality disorders take that out of a person. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Wow, I didn't know he was still trolling about with IPs. That's clear breach of RtV. Sad thing is, I agreed with most of his points, but his methods were not tolerable in a collegial environment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per EdJohnston point that the user can either be vanished or sock, but not both, and can request an unblock if he'd like to return to legiitmacy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Best way forward for all. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above, and likewise for similar vanished editors like ChrisO Minor4th 20:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Oh, and I won't hold my breath for an apology from people accusing me of gravedancing with this [3]. Actually, come to think of it, just unblock him and let him edit since he seems to be able to do so anyway and people like Courcelles are determined to protect the userpages of abusive and unrepentant puppeteers. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Huh. That diff has certainly improved my opinion of Courcelles. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC).

• ^^ Agree 100% with what the honorable "Bish" said ^^ Chedzilla (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So why don't one of you unblock him? The block is totally meaningless anyway, he can edit whenever he likes. After all, an unrepentant "sockmaster" has again had his userpage "courtesy blanked". While we're at it, blank all sockmaster pages and unblock the lot. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Editor appears to have no intention of disappearing. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The vanished user provision does not provide impunity for unrepentant puppetmasters, especially those who have an ax to grind (see some of the above diffs, which indicate that SA/JWS/whatever his current name he is using will attack other sockmasters from new accounts. Pot, meet kettle, indeed Horologium (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

What do you mean by "unvanished"? Changing VanishedUser314159's username to ScienceApologist? Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's the short of it. Basically, re-establish his name, undo courtesy-blanking of pages relating to him, and adjust ArbCom pages to clearly reflect whom they are referring to (rather than the VanishedUser name). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. As if he had never vanished. Requires a 'crat to accomplish. I don't think it requires a discussion at WP:AN, but I think that is the best way to handle these: one at a time, in full public view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Completed

• In light of the snowy nature of the above discussion, and the fact that the user's activity is well out of the scope of RTV, the user "VanishedUser314159" has been renamed to "ScienceApologist", and all the pages in the userspace have been moved over accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Bless your heart. SA is at least the third person to blatantly violate the vanishing policy that I know of, and the first one to have their vanishing properly undone for it. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• If I am not mistaken, only four hours has elapsed since this request has been initiated at ANI, making it very hard for large segments of the world to comment, and no comment from the accused. There is only one SPI allegation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist/Archive which didnt have a Checkuser result, but was basically determined to be WP:DUCK, and only one request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ScienceApologist, which was pending a checkuser result when you 'unvanished'. Why the urgency?? It doesnt appear that he has been editing a lot and causing lots of problems. arb user:AGK has now done the checkuser and concluded there is no technical data to support the socking allegation, but asserts WP:DUCK. user:Hudn12 has now been blocked as a sock by admin user:Dennis Brown, the same person who initiated the SPI and this unvanish request. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The accused couldn't have commented anyway, as SA was indef blocked in March of 2011 for block evasion, which raises the question of why the vanishing was allowed to begin with. Yes, I filed the SPI and made the call to block based on duck evidence, after another editor, AGK confirmed my suspicions. Technically, I didn't have to go to SPI and could have just blocked him as a duck, but chose to stay in process and get a second opinion for good measure. CU was run during the change over, which was bad timing as everything hadn't updated so the results couldn't possibly be obtained properly, but a look at the IP addresses compared to previous, plus the contribs evidence, was clear enough to at least two of us. I didn't ask for the CU to prove the case, I asked to establish a record and find sleepers. As for bringing the case here, of course it would be someone like me who actually had to deal with vanished user cases at SPI more than once. No one who had never heard of the case would stumble across this otherwise. You're welcome to check my work if you think I've made a mistake, I don't have a problem with that at all. As to the amount of time spent here, that wasn't my call, so I can't really speak to that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I forgot to add: technically, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that I come to WP:AN to get a vote anyway. WP:RTV appears to be intentionally vague about this, indicating that whatever method that is appropriate, is appropriate. I chose to come here instead of asking a 'crat directly, to keep everything in full daylight, and notified you and others who were involved previously. This might have been quick (not my call), but everything has been in full daylight. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • If I may insert my $0.02 here, I feel you were quite right in keeping it in full daylight. It was quick, but that's because it was such overwhelming WP:SNOW. While I had no opinion on the unvanish request itself - I didn't feel I knew enough - the discussion and consensus seem clear enough to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy blanking

I've courtesy-blanked some of the pages linking the ScienceApologist account to its owner's real-life identity. I don't think the "unvanishing" was really necessary; it feels a bit vindictive, but I don't oppose it since it will make it easier to address further sockpuppetry if it occurs. But we need to courtesy-blank the pages that link this account to its real-life owner. We've done this for editors far more abusive than SA. Our basic ethical principles include (or at least used to include) the idea that we don't use Wikipedia's online prominence to "punish" editors by damaging their real-life reputations, no matter how abusive their on-wiki behavior.

I feel strongly about this - strongly enough to protect the pages in question if there's edit-warring over the courtesy-blanking. This should not impact our ability to identify additional sockpuppets of SA, since the relevant details will be preserved in pages histories under the account's original name. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm certainly not going to edit war with you MastCell, not my style after all. I can honestly say I have never have reverted an admin action, ever, without discussing and consent, which is more than was done here. Not sure why you would even bring that up. I didn't unblank them until after this AN discussion, after all. The goal wasn't because of being vindictive or trying to punish anyone, it was exactly as stated and within a process that isn't technically required but was done for the sake of being open about it. Since I am the one that unblanked them, you could have just asked me about it on my talk page. There is really no need for posturing here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually didn't look to see who had unblanked them, and my comment wasn't intended to be a shot at you personally. It was actually triggered by a discussion at User talk:ScienceApologist, in which another admin declined to blank the pages. I apologize if it came across as personal criticism of your actions. MastCell ^Talk 19:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Then I'm sorry if I came across overly defensive, as someone kindly pointed out I might be on my talk page. I started this AN discussion and proposal, the current SPI report, the last series of blocks and the page blanking. In this case, it might have been more fruitful to just approach me as the person most involved in this current round of affairs with your concerns and I would have likely just reverted them back myself. My actions in all this was based on procedure, not personal feelings, as someone who has had to dig through the archives to match up the socks, and wasn't aware of the potentially personal information involved. And for the record, I'm always open to criticism even if that doesn't apply in this instance, I just prefer my talk page as a starting point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Understood. No hard feelings, hopefully. MastCell ^Talk 21:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
        • No harm, no foul, just a communications mixup. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Import/histmerge

Sorry to come here; I was an admin for so long (just resigned temporarily) that I don't remember where I used to go to ask for more specific help.

The earliest edit to MathematicsAndStatistics (one of WP's first pages) had the text "see Mathematics and Statistics". However, that page's history begins in 2011, while nost: has a revision (nost:Mathematics and Statistics) from 2001. Could someone please import it and do the necessary bits required for a histmerge? Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I should have  Done it. Hope I didn't break anything... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The original history was permanently deleted in June 2002 per the Old deletion log. The deletion discussion is buried in this diff]. Graham87 06:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the correct page for requests like this is Wikipedia:Requests for page importation. Graham87 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the link! I'm confident that I've never noticed that page before. Checking WhatLinksHere pointed me to User:Emijrp/FirstPages, which led me to create a pile of import requests at the requests page. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 22:47, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Question on process

Question asked and answered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a couple of recent discussions at AN/I, I made the comment that I felt that SarekOfVulcan is not a great administrator on some issues. Specifically, my complaints revolve mostly around the WP:Civility pillar. His response was that I should pursue a recall of his adminship or keep my complaints off Wikipedia. While I feel that administrators as a matter of public good should be willing to accept critical commentary, I recognize the reasoning for his statement. However, in the vein of responding to his request, I would like to ask for a temporary ban for Sarek on using tools for any purpose whatsoever, to essentially live the life of the common man for a consensus-directed length of time. After doing some checking, I don't see an obvious route or process for this sort of thing, so I'm here asking how it would be formally requested and done in a manner consistent with community consensus and fairness. My basis for this request simply goes back to the civility pillar, and the admonishment on the WP:Admin page that administrators "are never required to use their tools and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved". In essence, to reinforce civility, I would like Sarek to live by the restrictions of a normal user for a time, so that he can gain the perspective that I feel he has lost. Your thoughtful assistance in directing me through the next step to make this request is appreciated. -- Avanu (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I don't know anything about your concerns - though I've seen the name (Star trek reference, so the name at least is memorable), but I don't recall ever actually interacting with SoV. Anyway, with the disclaimer out of the way. I'll say that I think I remember more than once that the community has, through discussion, approved desysop in the long past. though in the cases i can think of, it was "approved" by Jimbo Wales (back then he was a bit more "hands on", and so did the de-sysopping himslf following the community discussion. So I dunno. Arbcom, definitely. AN/I discussion, "maybe". but I think that it's been a long enough time, you'd probably need to run an RfC on it first, unless IAR applies somehow. And if this is going to be a "reverse rfA" (a call of no trust), then a bureaucrat would probably need to "close" the discussion as well. - jc37 04:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) After I had some time to consider what Sarek had said and time to re-think my statements, I wouldn't be asking for a 'de-sysop' really. Just a 'ban' in the manner of a typical WP:BAN, except that the ban would apply to the use of tools. In other words, he would still fully have the rights and opportunity to use his additional powers, but would have to refrain from the use of them for the specified length of time. More the idea of a 'sanction' than an all-out destructo implosion thing. My goal is not to 'make Sarek pay', but to encourage him to see the side of things that so-called normal editors see, for a while, in order to gain insight and improve as a part of the community. -- Avanu (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I'll have my own disclaimer: this is a process comment only, and not a recommendation on what you should do. Administrators have historically only been desysopped by Jimbo or at the direction of ArbCom. All deviations from this were emergencies related to compromised accounts and a couple of special cases where editors were granted the bit for technical reasons. However, administrators can be blocked or banned as much as anyone else can, so that route is certain possible through ANI. As for actual recommendations: if you think there are serious, actionable behavioral issues, then file an RfC. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC) From what I understand, Avanu, you don't want to de-sysop Sarek, but you do wish to seek lesser sanctions against him for a time. I would recommend either pursuing an RFC/U or a notice at AN/I, carefully constructed to present evidence of incivility clearly and concisely. In either case, you should explicitly state that you do not seek to recall Sarek, you want them to stay an admin in the long run, and you are just seeking a short-term sanction. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Um, no. My response was that Avanu shouldn't call for my desysop if he wasn't willing to actually put in the work to demonstrate that I deserved it, and that he shouldn't say it was shitty to block someone to enforce a BLPBAN. I explicitly said on his talkpage that I had no problem with actual criticism, as opposed to personal attacks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC) As a TPS'er of SoV's talkpage, and having viewed Avanu's interactions and commentary about SoV across many platforms, I have to say that the tone and nature of Avanu's interactions are hounding bordering heavily on dickish. He's needlessly provocative. SoV has kept their cool. Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy, and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does. My suggestion would be a one-way interaction ban on Avanu, that does not permit them to discuss, or comment on, or interact in any way regarding SoV. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC) *snort* Nice edit summary there, BWilkins. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC) heh, I knew you'd appreciate the sarcasm LOL (I was going to say "SoV is provocativelessly needy") (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I have to respectfully disagree with BWilkins on this. Particularly "Avanu has found zero instances where SoV has actually broken any policy and done nothing but WP:ABF on anything SoV does.". This is a request for process, not a platform for reviewing Sarek's actions. In addition, the AN/I determined several months ago that keeping a log of admin's bad deeds on Wikipedia was a violation of policy, not sure if you recall that debate, but an editor was keeping a list on their Talkpage of bad deeds (in their opinion) that certain admins had taken. I have compiled no such list on Sarek either on Wikipedia or elsewhere, I simply don't care to do that or have the time for it generally. However, back to facts, over a long period of time, extending beyond SoV's talkpage, I have observed SoV's behavior and I take issue with some of the particulars. The idea that I am hounding another editor when I have next to no interaction with him normally is absurd, and the only reason I recently did was because he closed/resolved a AN/I debate I had participated in. He banned the person, and then proceeded to block the guy; the community consensus found this block to be overly harsh and overturned it. I have a particular disdain of power being used in a pushy way for its own sake. I did allow my indignation to get the best of me in that recent debate because I see it as the latest incarnation in a continuing episode of the same. BWilkins might find it humorous to have a legitimate complaint about an admin, and humorous to want to proceed in a professional way with such a complaint. When an editor has a complaint, this kind of ABF only serves to make things more contentious. Additionally, the assertion by BWilkins that I do nothing but assume bad faith on SoV's action is absurd as well. Even in the latest debate, I called on other editors to defer to Sarek's determination of a ban and get his clarification for how it was to be implemented. In other words, I respect his right to act in an administrative capacity, and respect his decisions when they are made impartially and fairly, but I take issue with his actions if they serve to amplify contention or are outright uncivil. I appreciate the assistance from others on how to proceed, sarcasm isn't as helpful though. -- Avanu (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Given the tone of Avanu's comments in the WP:AN#Block review: Sceptre and AndyTheGrump thread not far above this one (eg [4]), it's rather hard to take this report seriously. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC) There are two options in this case. You could file a WP:RFC/U to try to influence Sarek and have him voluntarily agree to stop using admin tools for a while. You could also file an arbitration request with the intention of having ArbCom temporarily desysop Sarek (it's unlikely that they would enjoin him from using the tools without desysopping him). Neither option seems likely to happen, but they are your only two options. NW (Talk) 12:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) Nah, the 3rd option is that we implement the WP:IB I suggested quite seriously above :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I think Sarek's point in telling you to put up or shut up, so to speak, is that the way you've been going about things cannot fix anything, it can only increase the ambient "grar" level surrounding you guys, which is exactly what it's been doing. If you believe a user has a history of disruptive behavior or misuse of tools, the way to deal with that is to lay out the case in an RfC/U, showing the evidence you believe proves it, and let the community discuss and reach consensus on what should be done about it. The way not to do it is to drop small comments in unrelated threads about how the person in question is a problem, until they're forced to tell you to either do something about it or drop it. Avanu, if you really feel that Sarek's behavior is so problematic that something needs to happen, then you either need to start an RfC/U about him (which cannot desysop him, but can reach a consensus that he should be desysopped, or that he should stop using X tool, or that he should stop doing Y thing, etc), initiate his recall procedure (whatever that entails - I haven't looked at his in particular), or start an arbcom case (which is likely to be rejected unless you can show some really egregious behavior that could not be resolved through normal dispute resolution). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC) And I tend to agree with you on what you just said. If I do take some action, I want it to be done with a clear head and reasonable rationale. Generally, I just leave him to his own side of the Wiki and move on. I think the commmunity input here has been helpful in allowing me to know the options and focus my thoughts on this, and I think it is reasonable to allow some time to pass before taking action to make sure it simply isn't emotionally-driven. I want a positive outcome ultimately. Thanks for the comments. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Nelson M. Cooke

Nelson M. Cooke - A month ago, the following was posted: 01:44, 31 May 2012‎ Ktr101 (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (13,122 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Ktr101 moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nelson M. Cooke to Nelson M. Cooke: Created via Articles for Creation The article still cannot be accessed. Can someone help or tell me what to do? Raymond C. Watson, Jr. (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't you see it right here? Nelson_M._Cooke?--v/r - TP 17:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If by "still cannot be accessed" you mean "doesn't appear in Google's listings", that's beyond Wikipedia's control. You also asked this at the help desk - please ask in only one location. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 18:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal of User:Ananny

I just came across this user while Huggling, seeing them edit war with other editors. After asking Freshacconci, he pointed me to the LTA page for the user, and I saw that s/he was never formally banned (correct me if I'm wrong). I think that enough is enough, it's been six years with probably close to 50 different accounts/IPs being used. I'd like to propose that we formally ban the user from the English Wikipedia. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 20:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a single instance where she wasn't treated as banned anyways, truthfully, but if you want to formalize it go ahead. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really necessary though. "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." - WP:BAN. There was some resistance here last time a formal ban discussion was raised for a long-indeffed user with a lot of people (myself included) opposing to it as unnecessary red tape. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Null this user is de facto banned - there's no need to be bureaucratic about bans or to give this type of user any further recognition--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability/2012 RfC

I see the RFC on Verifiability language is fully protected, so that only administrators may edit it. Why is this? It makes it rather hard to opine on this alternative or that without the ability to save an edit... Carrite (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Only the main page is protected -- if you click the section edit link, you'll be editing a subpage, which isn't protected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Guayaquil Montage Ultraman X77.png

This picture has been deleted from commons before because there are no information about pictures that are collected. My propose are that this can also delete as copyvio.--Musamies (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been deleted from Commons, because the uploader claims to have been the source of the images by posting a template that says "I, the copyright holder of this work". Unless, of course, you have another source for one or more images showing that the claim is a lie? Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the components is found here [5], another here (number 7 in the image slideshow). Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link; I've now deleted. Nyttend (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"… on Twitter"

Further reading

• "Two words: Cat Daddy on Twitter." — Drmies
• User talk:LadyofShalott/Archive 22#Twitterpedia
  • "Lady, I was hoping to get your help creating List of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter but I guess I will hold off for a week or so." — Dennis Brown
  • "This is a list of notable people who have articles on Wikipedia regarding their use of Twitter." — Drmies
  • "I had a feeling Bieber and Gaga would spawn similar ones. Kudos to the nominator for picking up on this tripe." — Dr. Blofeld  · "Wonder no more, Drmies created List of Twitter users." — Dennis Brown
• Category:Twitter accounts and Category:Celebrity Twitter accounts (CFD discussion)
• Barack Obama on Twitter  · (DYK nomination) (GA nomination)
• Justin Bieber on Twitter (AfD discussion)  · (DYK nomination) (GA nomination) (FA nomination)
  • "Delete as fancruft. Delete as fancruft."
• Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (AfD discussion)  · (DYK nomination) (pending GA nomination)
  • "Feel free to WP:AFD it, but it is the future of WP." — TonyTheTiger
• Lady Gaga on Twitter  · (DYK nomination) (now deleted GA nomination)
• Rihanna on Twitter (AfD discussion)  ·
• Use of Twitter by celebrities and politicians and List of Twitter users (AfD discussion)
• 2012-06-16 unanswered Administrators noticeboard request for closure by someone uninvolved of the List of Twitter users merger discussion.
• 2012-06-24 Administrators noticeboard request for closure of the Ashton Kutcher on Twitter AFD discussion, declined by Tom Morris on the grounds that very few people in the AFD discussion were actually treating this in terms of Wikipedia content and deletion policies.
• 2012-06-24 DYK talk page request for closure of DYK promotion discussions of the Ashton Kutcher and Barack Obama on Twitter articles
• Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates for Deletion

The problem

Interchangeable asked "Has there ever been a case like this, in which an article is simultaneously up for AfD and FAC? And is that allowed?".

The answer is that yes, we've had a few cases where featured articles, and DYK nominations, have been nominated for deletion. Bulbasaur (AfD discussion) (2nd AFD discussion) (3rd AFD discussion), for example. The subjects tend to be U.S./global popular culture and recentist. And the deletion nominations tend to share a taint of "How can this be on the main page as an example of our good work?", which isn't the remit of AFD. Procedurally, they can be knotty. But that's mostly the case when a new article that was too suddenly nominated for deletion without proper research being undertaken turns out to be a DYK candidate, and the AFD 7-day clock conflicts with the DYK clock.

That's not the case here. And what we have here is taking on all the signs of a problem that I've seen before, as possibly have many other administrators, years ago.

The problem here is a rash of "… on Twitter" articles written by editors who have quickly headed for DYK, GA, and FA, saying things like "this is the future of Wikipedia" along the way; a backlash against that by a sizeable subset of the community; and some rather wrongheaded disruptive point-making in the guise of superficially helpful attempts to extend things in absurd ways, such as the "new process" by Br'er Rabbit, and the various sarcastic (but not clearly to the casual reader) further article suggestions of others, some in the encyclopaedia proper, alas!. Witness List of Twitter users (AfD discussion), for example, which started as a deliberately absurd suggestion on a talk page, was created as an article, and which I've tried to turn around away from the absurd direction by pointing out that there was actually a prose article to be had, that was hidden in plain sight, once one ignored the absurdism.

The fact that people have already started using the "-cruft" suffix again, and otherwise parrot-voting with entirely rationale-free AFD discussion contributions, indicates that we're rapidly heading back to the days of the schools AFD discussions, if we don't start reining in the supporting-what-one-actually-opposes-to-absurd-extremes pointmaking (in the project and article spaces) and the policy-free arguments. We need to nip this in the bud.

Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)