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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 143 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done although I wouldn't mind a 2nd set of eyes on the close. I'm not as sure on this as I'd like (which I suppose is no consensus). Either way, a second look never hurt anyone. Soni (talk) 15:06, 16 May 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 61 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:Whadjuk#RfC: Inclusion of Noongar words

(Initiated 60 days ago on 17 March 2024)

No new posts for over a month. Legobot auto-removed the RFC tag, but I'd like a definite outcome. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong objection - there is no such thing as a definite outcome in this particular issue, it is unresolved and likely to remain that way. JarrahTree 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 11:10, 16 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 47 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 39 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 38 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 38 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 21 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 1 day ago 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)

 Closed by editor Redrose64. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	4	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 56 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 55 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 22 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 113 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 107 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 100 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 93 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 18 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 14 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 13 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)

Talk:List_of_generation_I_Pokémon#Snorlax_Merge_Discussion

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 April 2024) Proposer of merge, discussion has been open for a month and seems to be shifted towards keep, but I'd appreciate an outside opinion as there have been some votes of opposition on top of my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

ClueBot NG appears to be down

Resolved

 – CBNG is back online - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The anti-vandalism bot, ClueBot NG, currently appears to be down. The bot has not edited in almost 24 hours. As the bot has several maintainers, I assumed this would be the best place to post the notification. If I am incorrect, I apologize. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alpha, thanks for reporting this. I've had a look at ClueBot's run page and that seems to be looking ok to me. I've emailed Cobi to make him aware of the issue--5 albert square (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw that someone has asked about this on Damien's talk page, apparently it was originally down to maintenance work but now the server seems to be offline? Like I've mentioned above, I've emailed Cobi, hopefully he'll be able to give an ETA of when CBNG should be back.--5 albert square (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, a response from Damian, this is apparently a server issue which we're waiting on Rich to take a look at. There's currently no ETA of when this will be fixed, so until it is, I've put a notice on CBNG's talk page saying the bot is down.--5 albert square (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further information. ClueBot has now been down for about 90 hours. Andrew Kurish (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I don't think there's any further information yet, there wasn't an ETA when I put together the notice for ClueBot NG's talk page. Hopefully it won't be too long :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, I apologise for CBNG's downtime, this is due to me not being able to pay for the server and hence it being suspended by the host. I can assure you that the server will be back alive on the 9th of December which is when I get paid next. Sorry again for the confusion - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 23:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rich, thanks for the explanation. I saw Tedders suggestion on your talk page, do you know if that would be possible?--5 albert square (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

How much does hosting cost? I may be able to help, if you want. bobrayner (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(Reset Indent)This may not sound smart but why can't you just get a toolserver account? --Kangaroopowah 02:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Its actually a valid thought, however the toolserver has restrictions on how much resources any one user is allowed to consume. Given what Cluebot does it probably uses too much resources. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• The bot may be able to run on Wikimedia Labs at some point. Sven has asked below and I've added a note on the projects's talk page. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 04:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Update - The server will now be back on the 8th, however we will be moving it over to a Wikimedia Labs instance ASAP. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to contact Rich on Skype and IRC without luck for the past two days after he suggested I might be able to help pay for it. ClueBot NG contributions indicates it is still down, so I asked on #wikimedia-labs for an update, and petan said the VM instance is created and Rich tried to start it without success. Nobody has heard from him since yesterday when he said he was busy (he's a student and works too.) I commented out the {{resolved}} header above for the time being; please check contribs before replacing it. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Update 2 - Okay, OVH have made me rage! They decided in their wisdom to fully terminate the server... so I've lost EVERYTHING(!). Me and Damian can get it back, albeit not fully taught... but it may take a couple of days. I am extremely sorry that this has happened and hopefully we can get it back up ASAP. When it is back up, we are going to need more and more community members to assist looking though the false postives so the database can be re-filled, anyone wishing to help can send me an e-mail or a talk page message and I will get you set up. Many thanks for your continued patience. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Skype, the installation problem has been resolved on WMF Labs and ClueBot is compiling there presently. This thing apparently uses an artificial neural network (ANN) simulation to judge false positives. Anyway, a lot of help is going to be needed to review logs to get it working well again because the ANN database, which is usually stored in RAM apparently, was lost when the OVH ISP terminated the account. 67.6.163.68 (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

For clarity are you refering to the review interface? Crazynas ^t 22:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The review interface just feeds back to the (currently missing) report interface which was databased in the same location as ClueBot itself. That's what the IP was referring too - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 00:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick question about "email this user"

Sorry, I never get into trouble so I don't know this stuff :) If I click on "email this user" and send them an email, and they later claim that I said something completely different from what I said, does anyone on-wiki have a way to check it? If not, what method do you guys prefer if you're trying to keep something private because you don't want to be publicly pointing a finger at someone, but you want to protect yourself in case they claim you said something different? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're emailing a mailing list there is no record of the email sent, and no way to verify if someone lies about its content. The best you can do is select the "E-mail me a copy of my message" option on the email user form--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Being slightly pedantic: that is not entirely true. I ask a CU to comment below.  Chzz  ►  22:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, checkuser can verify an email was sent but there is still no way to see the content of the email. –xeno^talk 22:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, thanks, Xeno, that was my pedantic point.  Chzz  ►  03:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in case of an absolute emergency, the Devs could see the contents of the email. Was this an incorrect impression? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the correct impression. Sysadmins can view the contents of an email. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Where do you have this information from? I don't know that any emails are being logged, not see it in mail config. Petrb (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's not true, it may be logged but I just don't think that Petrb (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a quick look at my own little MediaWiki installation, and did a text search in a database dump, and I don't seem to see stored sent mails anywhere in that, but maybe I missed it. More likely any "logging" is somewhere else (in the mail subsystem used by WP servers, for instance... developers could access that, and the mail subsystem could be configured to log outgoing mail). Alternatively, if it is correct, perhaps it's a particular configuration of the MediaWiki version for WMF sites (or just WP). Begoon ^talk 03:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

When a user sends an email via Special:EmailUser from this (English Wikipedia) wiki, currently: The MediaWiki system records the username (if registered), the IP address of the sender, the date/time that the email was sent, the sender's User agent, and an encoded version of the user-name and address of the user it was sent to. That information is only available to people with checkuser access (ie, checkusers, and Wikimedia/Jimbo, etc). The actual content of the email is not recorded by the currently deployed software - although, in theory, the server operators could store any and all information they see fit to (e.g. the content could be cached somewhere). Meta:Privacy policy applies in all cases.  Chzz  ►  04:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(Deep breath.) If you wanted to you could mail a public key signed message, or merely a suitably checksummed message, and post the sig/checksum of the message on wiki, notifying your victim correspondent on their talk page. If they then wish to claim much later that you said something else they would have to produce a signed message by you with the required sig/checksum. You, conversely would be able to prove that you had sent the message you claimed (if any message). The only thing they could then say was that they received no message or didn't check the sig/checksum. Rich Farmbrough, 19:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC).

Send a copy at the same time to a trusted person, crat., steward or whatever. Leaky Caldron 20:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good news: User:CorenSearchBot is back

I don't know if this has been mentioned in any well-read fora, but User:CorenSearchBot is back for now. A few extra eyes on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations would be very much appreciated. MER-C 08:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Huzzah! We just need ClueBot NG back and we can go back to letting the robots run everything. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords. ~Alison C. (Crazytales) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as they don't like beer (Did the Good News heading make anyone else think of a certain professor?) Crazynas ^t 09:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is better to combat and fight vandalism. Its back when it was shut down on July 2011. --Katarighe (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Closers wanted for WP:V RfC

Hi. The RfC regarding the lead section of WP:V ended a little over a month ago. There was an agreement that it would be closed by User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite and User:HJ Mitchell. However, this has not happened because of the low availability of two of those.

Would anyone be interested in joining the process so that it can get back on track?

There is an existing understanding that closers should be three in number, be admins in good standing, not have participated in discussions leading up to this point and not have commented elsewhere in such a way that their impartiality might be questioned.

It's a responsibility to be taken seriously. A minor change is at stake, but it is one about which there are strongly-held views. It's also the RfC with the highest ever level of participation on Wikipedia. So there is a lot to read and it will probably not be an open and shut case.

Any takers? If so, please put yourself forward by making your mark below. --FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Tempted. Am I wrong, or is that RFC archived twice on that page? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that will make it twice as much work. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be persuaded. Depends how urgent it is, as there's a lot to read and I'm busy this weekend. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is urgent is the sense that a decision is needed by 10 am. But I think editors want to know that it is moving in a forward direction. --FormerIP (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to step in if the two above me cannot or someone below me has more enthusiasm.--v/r - TP 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I could do it... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe SlimVirgin could work with you. Leaky Caldron 16:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll have plenty of time starting Monday and am willing to wade through the stuff. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't have the time to do it justice before Monday anyway so that suits me. If Worm will join us, we'll have the requisite three admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of the three of you, that should be good. But can I suggest making yourselves known on the WP:V talkpage first? There has been a little concern there about the risk of a runaway train of biased and incompetent admins. Yes, its a tautological concept. --FormerIP (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• just checking but are the victims... er I mean volunteers familar with the term hospital pass?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If no one has mentioned it at the RfC by tomorrow, I'll mention it then. Lots of reading to do... yay! Worm^TT · (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We are playing rugby now? :P --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Government: "A government can also be agreed to in order to close very contentious RFCs. A notable example of this was the 2011 closure of the RFC on the "not truth" issue in the Verifiability policy text. While in principle any univolved Admin is free to close a RFC, in this case it was decided that a group of 3 editors should have the exclusive right to do this. While no other Admin was formally prohibited from ignoring that decision and close that RFC him/herself, in practice any such closure would have been swiftly reverted." Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

That proposal was pretty clearly rejected, Count Iblis -- taking the Rejected tag off is not a good idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to reflect current practice. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment It is my understanding that the permission class of a user that the Wikipedia community trusts to specifically judge consensus already exists. If we're going to limit this close to a certain class of editor based on permissions held why not entrust it to the people we already trust to make difficult decisions regarding consensus(send it to 'crat chat)?Crazynas ^t 20:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In no way is the above meant to disparage or attack the neutrality or objectiveness or ability to judge consensus of any of the administrators that have volunteered, more of a procedural question. Crazynas ^t 20:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you're understanding is correct, actually, Crazynas. Admins/bureaucrats don't have the exclusive privilege of closing RfCs. --FormerIP (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No I do understand that, which is why my second sentence was conditional. This is a question for this particular closure (and others of this nature) why we're limiting the close to a subset of editors that are not selected primarily for their ability to judge consensus when there already exists a usergroup that is scrutinized on their neutrality and ability to gauge consensus. (in other words, allow any editor in good standing to assist the close, or limit it to the well defined group of users that are promoted based on this specific type of trust to judge consensus). Crazynas ^t 21:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. Yes, actually, that makes sense, except bureaucrats do not present a very large pool. I think, in this particular case it is just a case of consensus, for better or worse, between involved editors that they wanted admins. --FormerIP (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and finish what I started on my userpage. I hope you all find it helpful in reaching a conclusion on the RfC. Cla68 (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Folks, we have what is one of the largest RFC's ever, and its about a month after comments were closed it looks like we don't even have the closers picked. May I suggest that we create the short list of potential folks here, vett them not only for having no relevant issues, but also for anything that someone could successfully pretend is a relevant issue. And if that doesn't get it down to three, flip a coin and pick three and then roll. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In my naiveness, I'm listing the above volunteers and the original three, so other folks can starting paring or adding to the list, please consider this to be editable (not like a part of my post). North8000 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• HJMitchell
• Black Kite
• NewYorkBrad
• Ultraexactzz
• Worm
• Regentspark
• SarekOfVulcan
• Cla68

I interpret the above discussion to mean that the "new team" of closers consists of HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned. Isn't that correct? Neutron (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

All three indicated that they would be willing... I would just like them to confirm that they are actually taking this on. Blueboar (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. North8000 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That was my understanding, but I also said that I won't be up to it until Monday. I'll probably spend a good chunk of monday afternoon on it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that people are in a super hurry, they just want to know that it is heading forward, which, right now means hearing a clear statement something like: "HJ Mitchell, RegentsPark and Worm That Turned are the trio that is or will soon be working on closing this" Can somebody say that? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Or to be more specific, can ALL of THEM say that? Neutron (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly reading through. I hereby commit to the trio of closers. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I've scanned the discussion but won't be able to read it carefully till Monday. Since a Monday-Tuesday timetable seems acceptable, I too hereby commit to the trio of closers. --regentspark (comment) 12:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of image compromise at Muhammad

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could try and close the image compromise discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images. The exact section link is Talk:Muhammad/images#Proposed_image_solution, although there is other further discussion elsewhere on the talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd certainly hope no one claims that wall of text is a closable discussion. Hold an RfC or something, but that's just an argument that is difficult to parse and too long to follow. Voting is evil, but unorganized walls of text are worse. There is just no way outsiders to that discussion could possibly follow or comment intelligently on it without spending at least 30 minutes. It currently stands (if I counted correctly) at more than 31,000 words. That's a third of a novel. At most I'd hope it would be closed as "hold an RfC". Disclaimer/comment: I personally believe a handful of editors are creating these walls more-or-less on purpose in an attempt to get their way on censorship related issues. WP:NOT's talk page being a good example, with the pregnancy image debate being another one (but it at least was readable). Hobit (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree. Frankly, the discussion got trainwrecked by a couple editors (one on each side), and movement forward is unlikely as a result. An RfC would be pointless for the same reason. Resolute 00:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • • I don't have the time to read it all just now, and probably wouldn't if I did. You're talking about Ludwigs and whom? If you think they're an impediment to reaching a stable article, would you support an article ban for both? I find it impossible to discuss the topic with every thread being derailed into a battle of the egos. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
        • And Tarc. But remove the former, and you remove the latter as well. Ludwigs goes somewhere, repeats the same arguments he made 100 times already, and Tarc replies with the same rebuttal he made 100 times already. Ludwigs moves to the next forum, rinse, repeat. And voila, 500kb of "discussion". Resolute 06:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
          • My problem is not with Ludwigs' position - that it's a net negative for the encyclopedia to be gratuitously offending our readers - with which I agree, but with his style of argument, seemingly more intent on impressing posterity or silent watchers with his considerable eloquence and logical prowess than engaging and convincing his interlocutor. I thought you Erasorhead, Jayen, Mathsci and the others (excluding Alan, IP and Tarc) were working towards something there but once Ludwigs returned from his month away, the delicate and elegant resolution you'd proposed just got shoved aside while the various gladiators preened and posed. I don't think I've ever called for an article ban before but I'm seriously tempted here. I'll let Ludwigs know about this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
            • While Ludwigs has definitely been annoying and over-argued, he has been prepared to compromise. I'm sorry but I strongly object to topic banning an editor who has behaved significantly better than the editors on the other side. If you want to do a two sided topic ban (so Alan, IP, Tarc and Ludwigs) I'm OK with that, and I'm OK with blocking whoever you think is the worst offender - and that isn't Ludwigs. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I've thought about it some more, and I think this needs to go to Arbcom. They can look at the evidence and decide what to do with regards to topic bans. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I was hopeful that someone might try and close it, but fair enough. I thought it was a better option than escalation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Punishment of exposing someone's identity

I recognized an old user who used to edit under a different username last year, but ended it and started a new one. I went to his new user-page and called him with his old user ID (essentially exposing his old "user" identity). I wonder if I qualify for any sort punishment.69.232.73.16 (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are genuinely concerned that you've outed someone's identity, pointing out that you've outed someone's identity on this noticeboard is going to further compound rather than resolve the problem. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, genuinely revealed the old username of a current user and my IP has been blocked by an administrator for one month(saying that he knows the user corresponding to this IP). I am asking here if that is a fair punishment.--69.232.73.16 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is. And evading that valid block by editing with a new IP address isn't good either. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though the rule says, an IP must not be blocked for more than a few hours?

"Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours," --69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC) By the way, I did not expose his name/address or anything; just his old user ID. Does that also violate the policy?69.232.73.16 (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"Should not" ≠ "must not". I'm not sure whether you're genuinely concerned or just trolling us; if the former, you should contact WP:OVERSIGHT, and if the latter, you should stop before an admin less charitable than I blocks you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That's kinda what I hinted at above ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Some IP's are blocked for months or years, just not "indefinite", unless maybe they're open proxies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Selective deletion request (again)

The usual. Want to unclutter the page history.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 02:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

AWB backlog

Hi, can an admin please address the small backlog and requests at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 22:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've done a couple, but there are a few more; I'd prefer a more experienced admin handle them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Salting

I have been seeing a lot of MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2(something else) type pages being created example: MediaWiki talk:Customusertemplate-ACP2-Be a part of Wikipedia (Technology, Copyediting) which has been deleted 3 time now. Is there some way that we can forbid creation of any page with that prefix unless a user is autoconfirmed? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It can be done by using the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Maybe you could request that on the talk page. →Στc. 02:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad.

There was an RM to fix the 4-Acetoxy-DiPT article (which had incorrect spelling, -DIPT at the end). In the discussion it was said that it couldn't be moved because just changing the capitalization was invalid... anyhoo, I figured I could move it to an interim page, then just move it back with the correct spelling. I didn't realize that the redirect page would block the move back, so now it's stuck at a wayyyy wrong title that I intended to only be for 2 seconds while I moved it back. Oh man. Can someone move this back for me? 4-Acetoxy-DiPT 0101 -> 4-Acetoxy-DiPT. :( -Kai445 (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed. Thank you :). -Kai445 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The usual...

Selective deletion please.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There's more to do now.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's straw poll on SOPA

Please help me publicize this widely. I'm interested in getting a feeling from the broad community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

How about watchlist banners? →Στc. 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep

Would an admin close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:NWA.Rep? The discussion has been open 10 days.

I ask that the closer not be an arbitrator or arbitrator candidate as NWA.Rep (talk · contribs) is an arbitrator candidate.

I further ask that the closer not be a writer of an arbitrator voter guide because the user has said: "the lynch mob (namely the arbcom voters guide writers) wants me out of this project and are disgracefully trying to sneak this Mfd through when all the people who support it are the 'arbcom voter guide' writers". Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If that guy manages to get elected to the ArbCom, it should be a cinch for me the next time I run for admin. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it. 28bytes (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Closure of VPR

Hi could you please review and close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#.22Blocked.22_template_tweak it's blocker for deployment. Petrb (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the thread needs closure per se. It's quite clear that there is consensus in support of the proposal. You now need to convince developers to turn it on.  Sandstein  17:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am a developer it can't be deployed if discussion isn't closed. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32819 Petrb (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag unblock request – December 2011

User:TreasuryTag has requested to be unblocked. I am taking no position on that, but per his request will copy the unblock request here for the community to discuss, as his previous declined unblock request was judged to be a community ban, and this is the venue for considering whether to rescind such bans. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been gone for more than two months now, and I daresay some people have noticed the peace and quiet broken only by occasional orchestrated assaults on the project!
Meanwhile, I've been racking up a lot of edits I want to make. Edits that need to be made. Not controversial; not deletion-related; not Doctor Who-related – completely free of the areas where I seem to have generated trouble in the past.
I understand that I caused a lot of problems, understand how it happened, and fully intend to stop it from happening again. I'm already topic-banned from initiating any sort of deletion for six months after being unblocked, so there can't be any issues in that department, and as I say, I've discovered new areas of editing to go into which are (a) away from my past fault-lines and (b) sorely in need of an experienced, good-faith editor like myself.
Please let me back in! Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This unblock request is so accomplished that I find it almost irresistible. Hans Adler 20:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I can resist it. A longer break will do wonders for TT's attitude when he returns. A thought: it might help his case if we could see some evidence of trouble-free contribution on another Wikimedia project. The block is not a global one across his unified account. --Dweller (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• One minor point on the phrasing of the copied-over statement, regarding: "Edits that need to be made". No, no edit "needs to be made"; we don't need any contributor, especially if they are unable to collaborate with other people. Having said that, I'm of two minds about the appeal. Two months is not very long, and I find it hard to believe that TT's combative attitude has vanished. His unblock statement is heartening, and suggests the break did him some good, but did it do him enough? If a little is good, more must be better: I'm not sure the break was long enough, but if TT (and everybody who comments here) thinks so then I don't see a problem with letting him return. He certainly did good work when he was around and tried to be professional. For the purposes of the closing administrator, this is a tentative support. AGK [•] 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock I've never wished to see TT blocked long-term, merely for him to stop being so gratuitously abrasive when there was no call for it. If he'd go along with that, I'd welcome him back. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support' The potential benefit of giving a second chance here far outweighs the potential discomforts of having to block him again if he doesn't deliver on his promises.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock he's done enough time and seems to have made significant progress of understanding the issues that caused the block and seems positive about avoiding them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think User:Worm That Turned is wiser than I am - so oppose per him. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose (with regret) I was quite unimpressed when the last discussion was interpreted as a "de facto ban", something that appeared to come from left side and was unfair on TreasuryTag. I've had a couple of editors come to me and suggest that whilst they were opposing at the time, it was only for that specific discussion, and not for future ones. Having said that, I am not sure I can support an unblock of TreasuryTag, with no restrictions besides the topic ban. When HJ Mitchell unblocked him a few months ago, his restrictions were lax and TreasuryTag flouted them - I'm not sure that I believe he will not return to his old behaviour. Perhaps with mentoring or strongly enforced restrictions or even evidence that he has changed, I could support, but the unblock request does not persuade me. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Then if that were to happen again, we'd block him again. This small risk is worth taking. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• What about making a counter proposal that you could support ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose (also with regret). I've seen TT around a lot, and I fully acknowledge his great contributions and I really would like him back on the project. But with his extensive history of abrasive and aggressive confrontation with others, and the past breaking of promises, I could only support an unblock with some sort of reasonably strict mentorship, restrictions, or other supervisory plan in place - and I do hope that can be achieved in the not-too-distant future -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment one has to wonder if we need an unblock option for 1 day and so on. So that we can give an editor a chance to demonstrate that they are reformed. They can ask for longer periods each time and maybe get back to normal status. Probably not worth the effort to implement, but I think the concept still makes sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wouldn't re-blocking an editor that has only been productive since their unblock just be making a point?Crazynas ^t 22:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Probation" is a common practice in the real world. The point is that it is much easier to reinstate the e.g. block if the terms are violated; starting over from scratch is not required. Setting up such a thing might be good. From their wording where "you need me" is emphasized (including in the selection of a link) the and "I've changed" is barely there, I'm guessing that they they have not changed much, but that would be a way to find out, and possibly a way to modify their behavior. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I understood Vegaswikian's proposal as saying that just like a user can be blocked for a specific amount of time, so that they are automatically unblocked afterwards, we might want to unblock a user with an automatic block later on. It would be even better if we coud set this up periodically, so that e.g. an editor would be allowed to edit only 2 hours per day or so. I suspect that many of the behavioural difficulties on this site have to do with its addictive nature. This is a way in which many blocked editors would still be able to contribute productively, and I think quite a few editors who would otherwise start full-time socking might be led to find a better real-life/Wikipedia balance instead. Hans Adler 00:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment  While on the one hand, the behavior here in making an unblock request is obsessing and bounds testing; fuel to the fire is the vagueness of the indef block, which must be frustrating.  Suggest changing the indef block to a two-month block to be followed by the start of the six-month topic ban.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Unblock- basically because if this is opposed then we might as well add the following to the indef blocking policy: "An indefinite block is permanent and irreversible, with no possibility of appeal, under any circumstances, ever." What we have here is an editor who has contributed a lot of good stuff to the encyclopedia and can certainly continue to, but who has got himself in trouble by being obnoxiously opinionated and combative. After two months out of the game there is strong evidence of a change in outlook and a commitment to stay away from the areas that got him into trouble. What more can be demanded? Further, the long and messy discussion that led to the indef block was vague, confusing and frustrating to all involved, and I think indef blocks with a lingering air of dodgyness should be easier to reverse than clear-cut ones. If we unblock, there are two things that could happen. Either TT stays out of trouble, in which case we gain a productive editor, or he reverts back to being objectionable, in which case he can't do much harm because everyone will be watching him. Unblocking has only upside and no downside. If we refuse to unblock, TT's gone for good and it makes a joke of principles like WP:OFFER and "indef != permanent"- only downside and no upside. Thanks. Reyk _YO! 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Greg L unblock request (baffling block) – December 2011

I can't make any sense of the block of Greg L (talk · contribs), allegedly for disruption (the only evidence is to a discussion at Talk:Yogurt which was mostly caused by a misunderstanding, but was resolved much better and quicker than most disagreement I see on talk pages). Greg has asked for an unblock review, but so far no response from anyone. If I was so blatantly wrongfully blocked, I would hope someone would try to get the attention of an admin to unblock me, so here I am doing that for Greg. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If anyone should be blocked for disruption, it should be the admin who blocked Greg. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Born2cycle. The block by User:2over0 needs to be explained to the community. GFHandel ♬  00:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. 2/0 needs to explain his block to the community. It looks like a terrible block to me. I see nothing blockworthy in anything Greg said at Talk:Yoghurt. It looked like an animated but ultimately productive discussion to me. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This was 2over0's first action after 2 two weeks of inactivity and he hasn't done anything since, either. It looks as if there is only boilerplate text, so maybe he just pressed the wrong button somewhere and isn't aware of what he has done? (Admins will know better if that idea makes sense.) Or maybe his account is compromised or something.

It seems pretty much out of character, so the situation should be monitored and maybe the account blocked if things don't get clearer soon. Hans Adler 01:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the extensive instructions at User:2over0#Security, it almost looks as if he suspected something like this to happen at some point. Hans Adler 01:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked Greg L. There was no reason for him to be blocked at all, especially without any sort of warning or discussion from the blocking admin. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

To answer Hans's question, it is easy to block/unblock the wrong user if you regularly have a dozen tabs open at once. I've never done it, but I've protected/unprotected the wrong page before now!! However, this was the chap's only edit in two weeks, and only admin action in similar time. He doesn't appear to have been doing or looking at anything else on the project. Have to wait for an explanation I guess. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your help. I am now unblocked and able to edit. My block was indeed curious because 2over0’s contribution history shows he was off of Wikipedia for two weeks, dropped in to make just a single edit (block me) and immediately fell silent—even after others inquired on his talk page. I don’t profess to be super-expert on all-things-Wikipedia, but I do know human nature and find that unusual. Anyway, I very much appreciate my wiki‑friends stepping in here as well as other editors with whom I have had little-to-no interaction with stepping in here to do what they saw was the right thing. Regards. Greg L (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)