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)

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 92 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 60 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 59 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 46 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 36 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 36 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 29 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)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	20	39
TfD	0	0	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	2	3	5
FfD	0	0	2	2	4
RfD	0	0	23	48	71
AfD	0	0	0	14	14

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

(Initiated 54 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 52 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 111 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 105 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 98 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 28 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 16 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 12 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 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)

Strange behaviour from several new accounts

There have been several throwaway accounts recently—Yumakotori9, Samuelliam, Rozsateka, Vincemio9 and Antontimo2—that all follow the same editing pattern. Their edits almost exclusively consist of overlinking, adding redundant sentences and incorrectly italicising titles. Is this disruptive enough to warrant blocking? I've been reverting them but the frequency of these edits seem to be increasing. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Found some more: Reidan29, Emmaava17, Usagi40, Zoeemily, Ethanliam69, Yumiko69, Masonadam25, Aliceella25, Misako94. Obviously a sockpuppet of some sort, but I can't work out what the intent is. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Similarly unsure about their actual edits, but an SPI might be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

They might be a class of students learning how to edit Wikipedia and told to start off with this kind of stuff. Or, they are all making a load of minor edits to get auto-confirmed and then go after their real goals which may or may not be legitimate ones. Voceditenore (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I've not looked in a huge amount of detail but it seems like the edits are sequential, as if one person is moving from account to account. Sam Walton (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I raised something similar at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Strange concentration of new accounts on new, obscure article. Number 57 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about your examples, Number 57, but I left messages on the talk pages of all the ones named in this section asking them if this was a class assignment. This response indicates that maybe it is. But who knows? Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is possibly a continuation of the disruption first reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#Suspicious activity at Kammavari Palem. One of the accounts was proven to be a sockpuppet of User:036386536a; a couple others made unprompted denials of being sockpuppets even though no one had accused them in the first place. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/036386536a/Archive#6 June 2015 and the following two sections.) All the accounts implausibly claimed that Wikipedia itself told them to edit certain articles after signing up for an account. My best theory so far is that User:036386536a is either running or taking an online course on Wikipedia. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

@Psychonaut:, @Lukeno94:, @WikiDan61:.

I'm not so sure it's implausible.

Presuming they claimed they were suggested to different articles, pretty sure it's entirely plausible. AFAIK Wikipedia:GettingStarted has been shown to all newly registered accounts after they complete registration for quite a while now. (Meta:Research:Onboarding new Wikipedians/Rollout suggests since 2014-02-11.) Definitely it was shown when I created a temp account just now to confirm it's still working.

As that page says you can add ?gettingStartedReturn=true to any page to see what's shown to new users. If they came from an editable article (and the software knows it), they'll be invited to edit the article they came from, but if they came from anywhere else (an uneditable article or something that isn't an article or the software doesn't know where they came from) except special pages, they'll be direct to something else to edit.

Now, if many accounts claim they were all suggested to the same article (which wasn't were they started from) in in a brief timespan, that seems implausible unless there's a bug or weirdness in the design of getting started, those details I'm lazy to check.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Where is Poland?

So, where's Poland? Is it in Eastern Europe or Central Europe? There was an RfC about this on Talk:Poland, which I closed today in favour of Eastern Europe (diff). Accordingly, I changed the article to say so. I've now been reverted, but the editor concerned has not explained himself on the article talk page or on mine.

Taking the most charitable interpretation of the revert, I'll assume that this editor wants to challenge my close but does not know how to do so. (I was half-expecting a challenge to my close in any case, because I went for a decision rather than a compromise.) Could I have an RfC close review please?—S Marshall T/C 18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This is primarily a question about how Europe should be divided, not specifically about Poland - perhaps you should try an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Europe. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Hi @Od Mishehu: and thanks for responding, but I do just wonder if you might have missed the point?—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that close, and decided not to say anything if users seemed to accept it, but now that users have clearly not accepted it, I'm afraid I have to say that I disagree with it. Sorry Stuart, no offense intended, I appreciate your effort and good intent, but to me, that close reads more like a supervote rather than an evaluation of the arguments. In terms of arguing users, we have for a Central/Eastern Europe compromise: Cordless Larry, Piotrus, OnlyInYourMind, OwenBlacker, and Yatzhek. For Eastern Europe we only have Samotny Wędrowiec (though he would also accept, and even proposed, a Central/Eastern compromise), and TheGnome, while for Central Europe: Xx236. Of course the actual arguments are more important than the count of supporters, but Samotny Wędrowiec, Piotrus, and Xx236 each presented multiple links with evidence for their sides. It's pretty clear that the consensus is for a Central/Eastern compromise. I know you wrote that you also took the opinions of other people discussing elsewhere on the page into account, but that hardly makes it more clear, since there we have Oliszydlowski, Boston9, and Student7 arguing against merely Eastern Europe, and in favor of a compromise of both. (And of course there's Powertranz, though they merely revert rather than argue, so it's hard to tell what their argument is, it's still pretty clear they don't agree.) A closer needs to be able to put their personal opinions aside; if they can't, or don't agree with the clear discussion consensus, and think it should be listed as in Eastern Europe, then they can say so, and participate in the discussion, but they shouldn't close it as a supervoter. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

At the risk of complicating matters further, I feel I should point out that this RfC appears not to have been properly carried out, and seems not to have served the purpose for which they are designed. The intention is to attract the opinions of outside contributors - and for that purpose, a template is provided, which ensures that the RfC is added to the appropriate lists. As it stands, I can see little evidence that the 'RfC' amounted to more than a rehashing of arguments by involved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I'd agree that there were no outside contributors. There was what seems to be a correct RfC template on the article until Legobot removed it on 26th May (diff); I closed it more than three weeks after the template expired. I think the usual amount of effort had been made to attract outside contributors but none had showed up.
  
  GRuban's count is superficially accurate but I feel that to consider Yatzhek as "for a central/eastern europe compromise" is to disregard most of his posts on the talk page. Yatzhek hasn't been persuaded that Poland is in central/eastern europe, he's been exhausted into agreeing to it. I also don't agree with GRuban's apparent choice to disregard the IP posters.
  
  Until I read the RfC I didn't think much about this subject, but now that I've read it (and the linked sources), I really do think Poland's in Eastern Europe. Its eastern boundary is the eastern edge of the European Union, and also the eastern edge of NATO. Its language is Slavic and its people are, with minority exceptions, Slavs. However, I'm happy to be overturned if there's a consensus that I'm wrong.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for my earlier comment re the template - I thought I'd checked for it, but obviously missed it somehow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The 'location' of Poland has been an ongoing issue. Please see all of archive 2 (which includes an RM), and the majority of archive 3 (which includes an RfC) for the Galicia (Eastern Europe) article. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether Poland is described as a Central European country or not... but I've also been worn out by the proposal to define Poland as being in Central Europe from as many different fronts as possible. In fact, I've been so far put off the subject by what can only be described as FORUMSHOPPING raising its head every six months or so, that I've started to believe the hype. I agree with S Marshal's evaluation of the RfC. While I was involved with the Galician disambiguation issue as a matter of compromise, I truly see this as something that can only be neutrally assessed via a crossroads talk page where a far more diverse group of editors can !vote and discuss the COMMONNAME for the region in Europe English language sources agree on. To be honest, Eastern Europe has been treated as an IDONTLIKEIT assignation which simply isn't reflected in the Anglophone world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the conflict over Galicia (Eastern Europe) of November 2013. Since 2003, the article has been titled Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Galicia (central Europe), Galicia (Central Europe), Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe), Galicia (East Central Europe), Galicia (East-Central Europe) and Galicia (Eastern and Central Europe). Let's just say that identifying countries in this entire geographic area has been a ongoing subject of dispute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It sure looks like there were outside contributors. This RfC was OnlyInYourMind (talk · contribs)'s only contribution to Poland related topics, and OwenBlacker (talk · contribs) specifically wrote he was here from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Both were, of course, in favor of compromise. I strongly suspect that most other outside contributors would be too, because ... no offence to the participants ... to those without a dog in this fight, this likely just isn't worth arguing over. Please see Boris's view concisely expressed just below. Ahem.

As for S Marshall's arguments, they are just that arguments for the discussion. They are not conclusive (I suspect Austria or Canada or a dozen other countries could have issues with the concept that NATO borders defined Europe) or even appropriate, for the closing. The closer is supposed to evaluate the arguments made in the discussion, rather than decide based on their own views. Let's quote directly from Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus." With all due respect, it reads as if you have done the opposite. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, certainly I have no strong feelings on the matter. From my perspective as someone brought up during the Cold War in Western Europe, I was taught that Poland was in Eastern Europe — but where that term was a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations. Now I would describe anything between the Rhine and Poland's current eastern border as being Central Europe. But I'd understand either term and, as GRuban (talk · contribs) succinctly put it, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't really consider it worth arguing over ;o) Personally, I'm far more interested in a stable Wikipedia than whether the limits of Central or Eastern Europe are clearly defined. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, but why at Poland's Eastern border? To me that seems like a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line. Culturally, large parts of Belarus and Ukraine have a lot more in common with Poland than Russia. If you believe Poland and countries similar to it are in Central Europe, then why exclude Belarus and Ukraine? Would you include Germany with that definition? Linguistically it makes no sense, since as a native Polish speaker I can understand chunks of spoken Ukrainian and Belarusian without any prior learning of these languages (after learning the Cyrillic script I can also tell that their orthography is very similar to Polish despite of the difference in alphabets), the same applies to spoken and written Slovak and Czech (though reading that is even easier due to the similar alphabets), but I understand practically no spoken or written German despite of learning that language at school for 3 years. Even the political definition of Central Europe (nowadays often used as another term for Eastern European countries that are now allied with the US rather than Russia) shouldn't really end at Poland's Eastern border but about 3/4 into Ukraine. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Are we there yet? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• Per GRuban, the closure statement does not reflect the consensus as presented, and should be reverted. The discussion does not seem to support the conclusion written by S Marshall. --Jayron32 03:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not meaning to be disrespectful, most of the 'discussion' took place well before the stub-end posturing as an RfC. The protracted discussions prior that which is found in the 'RfC' have, to my mind, been considered and well represented by S Marshall. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm allowed to post here (as someone who has been trying to change things in this matter for over a year now), but if I am then here it is: for me personally the matter is clear - Poland is an Eastern European country through and through. The arguments I have provided over time and the amount of sources I linked to are enough proof that most of the world seems to agree on that. Central Europe is a concept that largely overlaps with the idea of Western and Eastern Europe. Time and time again we hear of Austria as either Western or Central Europe, whilst Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia are most often referred to as Eastern or East-Central Europe/Central and Eastern Europe (different wording, but essentially same thing).

The concept of Central Europe isn't that new, but it has always been mostly about the central parts of the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary - a unique mix of cultures from the East and West. Calling Poland a Central European country is a much more recent idea and it seems ridiculous to me since present-day Poland has only very small parts of land that used to be under the control of the Austrians. Going by this, even countries geographically more to the East like Romania or Ukraine have more right to call themselves Central European. What disgusts me the most is that Eastern Europe, in the minds of many Eastern Europeans, is perceived as something objectively bad or something to be ashamed of. Pretty much half of the countries in Eastern Europe have a growing minority of loud people who argue that Eastern Europe starts to the East of their country. This results in some funny situations, where people from Poland, Latvia or Serbia argue that they are in Central or even Western Europe - both ideas are marginal at best. It's also annoying how people can't let go of the political connotations to Eastern Europe. The Eastern Bloc is gone, half of the Eastern European countries are now politically Western, but their cultures and history didn't change overnight in 1989 or 1991. And yes, whether they like it or not, influence of the Russian Empire and the USSR makes up a major part of the region's history.

Anyway, the only reason why I started arguing for a compromise is due to the fact that I became sick and tired of repeating myself. This turned into a frustration that has led me to take a break off Wikipedia by getting myself purposefully suspended. I came back (though I am still suspended on the Polish as I don't think it's worth appealing for the lifting of my suspension in that part of the online encyclopedia, because it is filled with POV-pushing and moderators abusing their powers) and realised that an inhuman amount of patience is required to see anything really change in the Poland article. So I just started taking it a bit less seriously and devoted less of my time to it. Eventually I started arguing for a compromise. But the same thing happens. I post countless arguments and sources supporting the change, yet all I get is lightning-fast reverts, vandalising of the talk page with personal attacks against me and so on. The only serious responses I was getting were from a very small number of mostly Polish Wikipedians who either replied by simply saying that they disagree, some of them occasionally posted a link to support their view.

So the main problem here is that, at the current moment in time, Wikipedia does not reflect the views of the world. It does not reflect how the UN or EU statistically group these countries, neither does it show what the majority of us actually think. The Poland article is strictly controlled by a group of Polish Wikipedians, some of them with connections to people with authority, who are destined to turn all things related to Poland on Wikipedia into the most biased travel guide available about a "country in the heart of Europe". One absolutely ridiculous example of this that I remember was when someone modified a quotation from Angela Merkel in the Poland article to say "Central and Eastern Europe" instead of "Eastern Europe" from the original source. Most of these people are unwilling to discuss anything related to this. They have had their way for so long and they probably will in the end also. The only reason why some progress actually started happening is due to users from the outside finally joining in. But it looks like it was very short-lived, because after the change we are now back to the same people repeatedly reverting any edits on the topic. In case anyone wasn't aware of this, Powertranz is the worst offender. He has been reverting these changes since February 2014 and he has NEVER taken part in the discussion about said changes. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm on the verge of self-reverting and reopening the discussion here. Another independent person's input would be very welcome to me at this point.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

File upload wizard broken

FYI, apparently the WP:File Upload Wizard is currently broken, due to a change in MediaWiki's Javascript support. See thread on WP:VP/T#File upload wizard broken for technical details. I hope to see this fixed soon; in the meantime, could admins please keep some extra eyes on the Upload logs, since editors are currently thrown back on the old unguided upload form and there are large numbers of files with missing or bad file descriptions coming through. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request Admin Attention at Global Positioning System

There has been edit-warring at Global Positioning System, and now admin User:TomStar81 has temporarily locked the article. It appears that progress is being made, and that the editors may be able to work out the content dispute, but admin attention is requesting just in case there are personal attacks or other disruptive behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement, the limits of WP:INVOLVED, and (inevitably) Eric Corbett

Last night I closed a WP:AE request about a topic ban breach by User:Eric Corbett. A number of editors had commented on it, all of whom seemed to agree that while it was a technical breach of the TB, it wasn't worth a serious sanction. I thus closed it in that way with no action. An hour later, arbitrator User:GorillaWarfare unilaterally blocked Eric for a month. There are a couple of issues here.

• Enforcement. I closed the report as "no action", but GorillaWarfare overrode it. Had it been the other way round (i.e. I'd blocked Eric and she had unblocked him without discussing it with me, or here) then it would almost certainly have resulted in a desysop. It seems wrong that AE decisions can be overridden in one direction but not the other. Why even bother having AE if admins can unilaterally ignore the discussion and the closing of them?
• Involvement. GorillaWarfare was one of the arbs that voted for Eric's topic ban in the first place. Whilst that would not normally meet any definition of involvement, she was also quite vocal in wanting Eric completely site-banned during that case (here is the PD page). I'm ... uneasy that it was GW who did the blocking. As I said on her talkpage, she should undo the block, and if another admin wants to re-block, that's their prerogative (but again, the above issue still applies).

AE blocks can be undone by a discussion here. Whether that is the outcome or not, I think the above issues need to be discussed. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support unblock as out of process and against consensus. The AE request was filed at 21:45 UTC and Eric was blocked just before 04:00 UTC, during which time I was either reading articles or (mostly) asleep. A little over six hours is far too short a time to gain an accurate consensus; indeed, when I have entertained unblock proposals when coming across cases on CAT:UNBLOCK I have generally allowed 7 days as a suitable timeframe. I was very close to unblocking Eric myself, but I think a discussion here is a good idea - though one I fear will descend quickly into a mud slinging drama-fest :-( Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support unblock - After the AE discussion, this unilateral action looked to be a second bite of the apple. This is inconsistent with our goals and policy. If we are to ignore consensus, then why bother having AE. I'm also bothered by GW's comments about how there was only one admin among participants, which seemed to be a disrespectful jab at non-admin, indicating their input is less important than those of us with the bit. If it wasn't an Arb block, I would have simply unblocked him myself without asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)