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 26 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)

Requests for comment

Talk:Indo-Pakistani_war_of_1947–1948#RfC_on_what_result_is_to_be_entered_against_the_result_parameter_of_the_infobox

(Initiated 142 days ago on 22 December 2023) No new comments for over 45 days. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 139 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC on Singapore court case

(Initiated 123 days ago on 10 January 2024) RfC template expired on the 10th of February 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 13:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 89 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)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 72 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)

(Initiated 59 days ago on 14 March 2024) It's been about two weeks, since the RFC tag expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done as a NAC. Soni (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 57 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 57 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)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 52 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

A note for the closing editor... an inexperienced editor attempted to close this discussion and didn't really address the arguments. There's been some edit warring over the close, but it should be resolved by an experienced, uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Another note for the closing editor: beware the related discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship#Do not classify IFT-1, 2 and 3 as success or failure. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That discussion has only been going for two weeks and closing the RfC will not preclude editors from coming to a consensus on whether or not to remove the categorization entirely. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 43 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 43 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 35 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 34 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 34 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 27 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	36	24	60
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	37	40	77
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

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

(Initiated 52 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 51 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User hate CCP

(Initiated 31 days ago on 11 April 2024) Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 18 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Killing of journalists in the Israel–Hamas war#Merge proposal (5 January 2024)

(Initiated 127 days ago on 5 January 2024) The discussion has been inactive for two weeks, with a preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Eat_Bulaga!#Merger_of_Eat_Bulaga!_and_E.A.T.

(Initiated 127 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It's been over a month. So, it could be a good time to close that discussion. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Saleh al-Arouri#Merge proposal

(Initiated 121 days ago on 11 January 2024) Discussion has stalled since March with no new comments. It appears that there is no clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationwikiflight (talk • contribs) 11:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 118 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Now has been open for three months. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 109 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 103 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:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 103 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 96 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 89 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:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 76 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Afrophobia#Requested_move_4_March_2024

(Initiated 69 days ago on 4 March 2024) – Requested move open nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Alexander,_Prince_of_Schaumburg-Lippe#Requested_move_10_March_2024

(Initiated 63 days ago on 10 March 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of generation VI Pokémon#Greninja Merge Discussion

(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 April 2024) – The discussion has been largely inactive for the past month, and though there are occasional comments, it has largely slowed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:3α-Hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase#Requested move 9 April 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 April 2024) – I would close this if I hadn't opened it. It has been a month and there is one other participant (supporting the move). I can do any cleanup needed. SilverLocust 💬 22:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I believe even an involved person should have been able to close this discussion. I am not an admin, so someone else can confirm this Soni (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: Thanks. Contrast WP:MERGECLOSE ("Closing of merge discussions differs from closing of requested move discussions in that closings of uncontroversial merge discussions by involved users are allowed.") with WP:RMCLOSE (saying not to do so but rather to request closure here). I considered WP:IARing that after a month, but I had already said after 7 days to wait for an uninvolved closer. SilverLocust 💬 15:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that's essentially the same read I had. Technically RMCLOSE says so, but I don't see a reason to not invoke IAR here. I actually still do not know why all RMs need to go through an uninvolved closer, and I've tried to dig through talk histories for the why. Might be worth asking in WT:RM than here though Soni (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It's mostly because uncontroversial RMs are most often closed pretty quickly by editors who check WP:RME, whereas WP:MERGE closures are much more backlogged (Category:Articles to be merged) and more complicated to implement. SilverLocust 💬 16:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 25 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)

Talk:First contact (science fiction)#Splitting off the list

(Initiated 16 days ago on 26 April 2024) – It's been more than a week since the last comment. The majority of the conversation is between two users, and there's clearly no consensus. Ships & Space_(Edits) 16:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 14 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:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 11 days ago on 1 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:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 10 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 9 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)

Can someone restore my IFD'd images? Now I can't look back at my old Ref Desk questions

Resolved

 – OP asked deleting admin to restore, and they did. --64.85.215.111 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is for the images linked on my talk page. I mean I could take it to IFD review, but they were drawings used to illustrate a question on the Science Reference Desk, of course they don't have to match all the criteria for article quality, like matching every single criterion of the Chemical Drawing Guidelines or being in SVG. Now I can't look back at my old questions and ponder what they mean. I really don't understand mindless deletion campaign. Can't people leave Reference Desk images alone? Sure they weren't used in any article, but this mindless deletion makes old Ref Desk archives un-understandable. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding this a particularly compelling reason to summarily overturn another admins properly done actions. I think you will have to ask for a formal review if you want those decisions overturned. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This does look like a strange rationale for deleting images. I suggest you talk to the deleting administrator or go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hut 8.5 14:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Reference Desk is orthogonal to the encyclopedia itself: if it helps the project's main goal at all, it is in encouraging experts to create content which can later be used to improve articles. That means that images created for use on the reference desk should ideally be high-quality enough that they could be used on articles. It does not further the project's goals to make exceptions to our image quality guidelines for the sake of a peripheral sub-project. If particular images are needed for temporary retrieval then the best thing would be to poke the admin responsible for a copy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support undeletion as a general rule. The Reference Desk archives are a useful accumulation of questions and answers at varying levels of technical detail. People considering new reference desk questions are instructed to search for old answers in the archives. I have not seen these images, but the point is, if they were in use on the Reference Desk and attracted no complaint then, and now in retrospect someone is griping about some supposed quality issue, not that they're pirated, then by all means, they should be regarded as in-use images. They might be proposed to transwiki to Commons in the usual manner, but that is all. Wnt (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

topic ban for User:Santos30

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati

Santos30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is POV-pushing his personal views about Crown of Castile, Cross of Burgundy and several other articles. His attempts in Spanish wikipedia were reverted and he was finally blocked for sockpuppetry. He moved to English wikipedia a few months ago, distorting several articles to represent his personal views. He has been edit-warring to keep his changes. Several editors have failed to convince him via discussion. He doesn't acknowledge reliable sources, and he pours poorly-interpreted sources to support his POV. He is slowly moving Crown of Castile into fantasy territory to match his POV. This has been going for long enough.

Despite this, he makes some good work on American Independence articles, I am hoping that the topic ban forces him to stay in articles where he is being constructive.

So I propose a topic ban on:

• flags
• coats of arms
• anything related to Crown of Castile / Crown of Aragon, broadly interpreted (he can still edit and create articles about American viceroyalties and governorates, but he should only reference the Crown of Castile to say that it was founded by the Crown or that it was part of the Crown)

--Enric Naval (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Crown of Castile or how broad a topic ban related to it would be, but would the proposed topic ban cover xe's created articles? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hum, for the viceroyalties and governorates, you can write a lengthy article with only one passing mention to the Crown of Castile in the lead (e.x. Viceroyalty of Peru). But, hum, damn, they were legally part of the Crown of Castile.... I added an exception, I made it difficult to game.

In most of those articles it would cover only all those flags and coats of arms in the infobox (an infobox with no images is an improvement from using the wrong images).

For the American revolutions and battles, The Crown of Castile had already disappeared. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nathan Johnson:

1) The topic is not the articles that Santos30 has created. Those articles could have another kind of problems: Battle of Torata (no sources) or Arthur Sandes (copyright problems [1] [2])

2) The topic is that user Santos 30 (Domenico at Spanish Wikipedia) has two goals about Crown of Castile and Cross of Burgundy. And to get these goals he has modified several articles with his personal point of view. I have not participated in the topic about Crown Castle talk, but I did participate in the topic about the Cross of Bugundy.

3) User Santos 30 with his alter ego Domenico has been blocked twice at Spanish Wikipedia [3] because he modified articles without consensus when talk was still underway (July 9, 2008 and June 11, 2010).

4) In July 2012 he back to the same behavior changing flags in several articles while a talk was underway. He had been warning to stop three times [4] [5] [6]. Then he decided withdraw from Spanish Wikipedia (July 28, 2012) [7] and came to English Wikipedia, Simple Enlish Wikipedia and Commons to get his goals, first with 83.34.153.98 account and later with Santos 30 account.

5) In August 9, 2012, I asked a request at Wikimedia [8], they recommended me to request at every Wikipedia, meanwhile at Spanish Wikipedia Domenico was blocked per six months because sabotage (WP:POINT) when an administrator confirmed his puppet accounts Leonciolima [9] and Santos 30 [10] (since August 13, both puppet accounts are blocked forever at Spanish Wikipedia). August 17, 2012, finally I made a request in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Santos30/Archive, after Santos 30 recognized the account 83.34.153.98 DQ just commented that there is no abuse of multiple accounts on English Wikipedia, but I think the problem continues.

6) Backing to the topic: After Domenico/Santos 30 left Spanish Wikipedia, he eliminated the Cross of Burgundy flag in several articles at English Wikipedia (July, 27): [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. July 31, as a result of his editing changes in Spanish Empire an edit war was reported [18] by user Trasamundo. A long discussion took place from July 31 to August 12 in Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Flag of Carlism & Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 4#Continuation.

This is very important: He did not stop to change flags in other articles [19] [20] (July, 30). In August 5-6, when the conversation was still going on, even without achieving consensus, Santos30 returned to his usual behavior and began to change flags in other articles: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. I have asked him: "Why are you asking for a third opinion if you are changing right now the flags in several articles?" he answered me: "Americas was incorpored to Crown of Castile and whats your problem there?. You can open a new discussion there". (!)

In August 7, user Trasamundo decided to support Santos 30's point of view. I want to quote his words, because this is what Santos 30 calls consensus:

Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page. Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?

— Trasamundo (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In August 12, user MarshalN20 joined to the talk: "You have asked for several "third opinions", and all of them have been favorable towards the return of the Cross of Burgundy flag to the articles from where they were removed"; Santos 30 answered him: "Third opinion for the article of Spanish Empire yes, and thank you, but you came late because already we have a consensus to put the military red cross of Burgundy here. Without the modern white flag". (!) Obviously, in September 3, someone came and changed the flag [26].

7) Same problem in New Spain article. July 27, with his account 83.34.153.98, Santos changed the flag [27]; in August 5, somebody disagreed [28], and Santos 30 reverted him [29].

8) From November 21 to December 2, the same discussion took place in Talk:New Spain#flag was the "estandarte virreinal" (please review that talk, you don't need to be an expert). At the same time, Santos 30 reported user Escarlati in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Disruptive_editor_User:Escarlati, I agree with Escarlati's comment, with Maragm's comment, and with Enric Naval's comment.

9) Finally, I agree with this request. I really think Santos 30 is pushing his personal point of view without any consensus because I think Trasamundo's words can not be considerated as a truly consensus. Jaontiveros (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going on holiday for 4 days. Can someone explain to me why this request is getting no answers? Is it because the topic is not familiar to English people? Is it because most sources are in Spanish? Do I need to cross some extra "t" before I make this request? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in three hours

Just a reminder that WP:Pending changes goes live in a little less than three hours. The policy is in the usual place, at WP:Protection policy. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP. As a kindness to your fellow editors and admins, please do not drown RFPP in requests on the first couple of days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Krenair just pointed out on IRC that no one filed a bug request to enable it. Has anyone talked to a dev about getting it turned on? I just asked in #wikimedia-tech. Legoktm (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nvm, looks like it was never turned off. Special:Log/stable. Legoktm (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a question about what needs to be done, and who is able to do it at being discussed at Wikipedia talk:PC2012/RfC 3. It is currently turned on at least for certain testing pages. If turned on generally, it is at least suppressed somehow. If someone knowledgeable on the matter could comment there it would be appreciated. Monty₈₄₅ 21:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the question is answered, thanks. Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• I will try, as the person at least partially "to blame" for this, to be available to answer any questions, help with any backlogs, absorb gratuitous abuse, etc. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very confused, as I thought the community rejected having pending changes in mainspace? No objection, since in my mind it's a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PC2012#RfCs_and_community-wide_discussions for the executive summary. Monty₈₄₅ 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We should probably expect more of that as well. Every Step of this long process has been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, yet somehow vast portions of the community are still under the impression that PC was rejected a long time ago. I don't know how that happened but we should be aware that some users will be genuinely shocked and possibly pissed off when they see it being used again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Should this header be updated? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It should probably just be de-linked as it is now entirely irrelevant. Another detail that was missed was the actual protection interface, which still has not one but two warnings not to use PC. I don't have a clue how to even edit such a page. Anyone know how to fix that? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It'll be via a MediaWiki page, but I don't know which one offhand (there at least four that contribute the various options an d menus on that interface). CBM (talk · contribs) or Amalthea (talk · contribs) might know (there are a handful of other admins who know their way around that namespace, but those two are active). Or you might get a knowledgeable lurker at VPT. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will try that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there any chance of getting Pending Changes listed in the options under RPP in Twinkle? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure it will be, but may want to ask somewhere around WP:TW. Monty₈₄₅ 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I already left a request there earlier. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

So, in terms of implementation, the RfC says that admins are allowed to use pending changes where there has been vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations. Does this have to be in response to a current problem or can we just merrily start adding PC to pages if they've had vandalism/BLP/copyvio issues in the past? If there are a few pages I keep an eye on that are (say) minor BLPs, can I just switch pending changes on for them, or do we have to wait until there's some incident? I'm so glad there was such an extensive RfC process, by the way, and now we are just flailing around trying to work out what the fuck needs to start being done. A+ for planning, D- for implementation. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd advocate turning them on as needed going forward. NE Ent 22:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no hard and fast rule, but NE Ent's advice is good, especially for this stage of things. I'd make an exception if they're already under long-term SEMI due to previous problems, in which case I hope you'll consider "downgrading" the protection to PC on some of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good! This is a good idea for low to moderate traffic articles with problems. I can see how it might not scale for high traffic articles, but for the unloved ones that crop up on OTRS this is progress. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, PC does not work well with high-traffic articles. (congratulations admins, you now have another slightly vague phrase people will endlessly try to argue with you about, as is already happening at RFPP!) I think slowly adding it as needed is best until we have a better idea of what the typical response time for review will be. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

23 hours in

23 hours after Pending Changes has gone live and we've got 10 articles under pending changes, of which 4 are indefinitely protected. Today, PC was added on Chris Nathaniel, B.o.B, Star Trek, Peyton List (actress born 1998), Victoria Justice, Zakir Naik and Puppy mill.

The pages Federal Analog Act, Islamic University of Gaza and A Scause for Applause seem to have had PC protection turned on from before today. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Some folks seem to have never got the memo that we weren't using it the last year and a half. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The stealthy way that this mess-of-a-concept was kept alive against consensus is not right. What do we have to do to fully kill it? North8000 (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, three articles that were probably accidentally not taken off pending changes is all that is needed to declare months of discussion moot? That's some wackadoodle logic right there. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

PC protection was applied to those three articles on 6 September, 5 September, and 5 November respectively; it's much more of a "never got the memo" situation than a stealthy method of keeping it alive or accidentally not removing it. Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that accusation is 100% Grade A Bullshit. There have been five RFCs in the last two years or so. Each one of them listed at WP:CENT the entire time they were open. Altogether several hundred users participated. Nothing stealthy about that, nothing against consensus about that either. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's the problem really - if you tell someone that unless they call an orange, a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, you're going to electrocute them every 5 minutes - eventually they'll call that orange a small off duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, just to get you to bugger off. PC went pretty much the same way - beaten into people until they said yes in an effort to get everyone to stfu about it through boredom. Fish^Barking? 22:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively PC went through a robust consensus process which frankly few other policy discussions went through including many recent ones, which are now taken as consensus even though there was a fair amount of opposition and large numbers never saw the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• It appears in all of these cases that the PC protection was added simultaneous with semi-protection (thus making it a non-issue for all but the Federal Analog Act article where the semi expired after several days). Looking at the instances, I think PC protection should be removed from the IUG and Scause for Applause articles as their rationales would not be supported by the current consensus, while the semi-protection on both articles is sufficient. The Federal Analog Act article seems to have PC protection that is consistent with the consensus approach and so it is fine to keep it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I did precisely that to Scause for Applause after a request at RFPP, not having seen this discussion. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't be the first time that an administrator has picked the wrong listboxes in the protection user interface. I've done it myself — luckily noticing it before committing. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending Changes protection icons

Like all protection methods that are displayed in the top right corner of a page, I have created {{pp-pc1}}, and {{pp-pc2}} to tag accordingly to protected pages.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• You've looked afterwards at the result of your handiwork and now know that those are confusing, problematic, and completely unnecessary, I hope. Pending changes already causes the appearance of something in the top right corner of a page: MediaWiki's own pending changes box (the "flagged revisions tag") that appears automatically. Your templates not only duplicate that badly (since MediaWiki's provides revision information that yours do not) but sit on top of the MediaWiki tag partly obscuring it and making it harder to read and to click on. You've positioned your icon right over the top of the flagged revisions' drop-down arrow in the Monobook skin, in fact, making it nearly impossible to click on. Uncle G (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Is there an explanation somewhere of why these protection templates are useful? Why not just have the software give the right messages on protected pages instead of introducing extraneous edits on pages people are monitoring? What purpose does it serve to add and remove a template? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I find the little icon handy, though I agree, it would be better if the software detected the protection status and applied the appropriate icon. Monty₈₄₅ 21:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I can't argue with your observation that you find them useful, but I still question their general utility. For pending changes, all readers already see a system header to that effect, regardless of whether their changes are auto-reviewed. For edit protection, those unable to edit see a "view source" tab with an explanatory hover-text; those able to edit see a protection warning when they try to edit. Are you saying that it is useful to you to know whether less privileged editors can edit a certain page when you are not attempting to edit it yourself? Or do the existing mechanisms not provide enough detail? Either way, it seems like something a gadget or script ought to be able to provide. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I do find it useful, as it can inform what is going on. Sure you can go view the history, but its not as easy to see the current status that way. Monty₈₄₅ 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
        • For the case of these templates and this form of protection, not only is it exactly as easy, it is easier, since there is more in the MediaWiki-provided information that is given automatically without need for any templates at all. The problem here is reinventing the existing MediaWiki UI, reinventing it badly, and reinventing it so that it obscures and denies access to the existing MediaWiki UI. Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a request to discuss this side-issue at TFD with a link back to here. Please add any further comments there. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

History swap

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

---

Could an admin do the history swap, after Talk:2008–2012 global recession#Requested move was closed by Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) (a non-admin) in violation of WP:RMNAC as move to Great Recession (which has a significant edit history). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Anybody there? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I have this situation wrong: Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) performed a non-admin move close as "MOVE"; the requirements for a NAC are:

• The closer has not participated in the discussion, nor recently participated in similar or related discussions. --He did not.--
• The consensus or lack of consensus is clear after a full listing period (seven days). --Since there seems to be no disputing the close decision itself, I assume this was a good call.--
• No history merge or history swap is necessary. --A history merge swap IS needed, so he fails this criteria.--
• There are no more than a few associated subpages that need to be moved along with the move of the page under discussion, such as voluminous talk page archives. --Meh, non-issue.--

After closing the discussion as "move", yet failing to actually complete the move, when his closure was undone and he was asked about it, he responded by RE-closing the RM and stating "I simply closed the thread. An admin can merge the history if xe feels it's necessary. WP:BURO.", and he still failed to ask any admin to actually complete the move. Therefore, it appears that:

• Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) erroneously closed the RM as a non-admin because a history merge swap is necessary, and should be cautioned about performing further RMNACs;
• An admin is needed to complete this move & perform a history merge swap.

Is this correct? Rgrds. --64.85.220.158 (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a correct summary of the events. Except that a history swap is needed instead of histmerge (due to conflicting edits in the edit histories). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Corrected to history swap. --64.85.220.158 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If we take the text of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions at face value that it is a guideline, despite not being tagged as a guideline, then its a case of violating a guideline. While guidelines should be followed in most cases, they lake the force of a policy, merely violating a guideline is not generally sufficient to reverse an action. The concept that a non-admin should not close a discussion in a way that requires an admin to act comes from exactly this sort of situation, unless an admin is willing to carryout the close, we are kind of stuck. That said, I've seen cases where non-admins have closed a discussion and then had an admin carry it out, but they were extremely experienced editors, and evidently rightly judged the willingness of an admin to do it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• How about the following?
  1. Perform the merge per April 2011 consensus
  2. Place {{histmerge}} on 2008–2012 global recession
  3. Place {{Db-move}} on Great Recession

Would that work? (Please note, I've not read the actual merge discussion, if that's relevant to the process.) -- Trevj (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Help with AIV bot(s)

Anyone know how to get the AIV bot to work properly again? It has stopped removing entries from WP:AIV after an admin blocks the account or IP. I posted run-on messages at the bot's talk page, but I don't think JamesR checks in that often at the moment. At present, we're removing blocked entries manually.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like they are working sporadically, and currently dead. I also thought they seemed to be slower then usual the last few days. Monty₈₄₅ 23:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to file a request for one or two new bots. Both bots' userpages link to the source code, so it shouldn't be that hard to create a couple of new ones. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The bots are back up now. Does this happen often enough that there is a pressing need for more clones? Legoktm (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If there are to be more clones, we better find a way to make sure they don't all go down at the same times... Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know why they are working again?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing something in the process hung and it finally got killed, at which point the toolserver re-started the job. But the operator would probably know better. Legoktm (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're going to have to assume I know nothing (not difficult sometimes). Who is the "operator"?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Operator is JamesR, as you said above; bot userpages pretty much always have the name of the operator at the top of the page. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:HBC AIV helperbot5 is operated by User:JamesR (toolserver) and User:HBC AIV helperbot7 is operated by User:Wimt (apparently somewhere in Germany). Both of them would be the people to contact. It's probably worth seeing if we can get bots 1-4 & 6 back up too. Legoktm (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, you confused me, Legoktm, because, as Nyttend stated, I already contacted JamesR, so I assumed you meant someone else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

[Update to my last comment, not a reply to anything said since then] Per WP:BOTACC, "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page." Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CFD backlog

Does any brave admin feel like taking a stab at the massive CfD backlog? There are over 200 discussions ready to be closed at this point, pretty much all of November. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Small stab taken; I got the 1 November discussion and the 19 November discussion. Part of the problem looks to be a large set of related nominations from the 14th to the 16th; they appear to have gotten lots of common themes from discussion to discussion, and closing them will likely be hard. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing some work on it. I see that Good Olfactory is also hacking away at the backlog. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Avoiceformen.com from spam-blacklist

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

---

I've asked for the website avoiceformen.com to be removed from the spam-blacklist. My specific arguments refuting the grounds for denying the request have not been addressed. Instead my requests to engage in discussion to clarify the issues have resulted in the request being declined repeatedly with no useful feedback. I'm hoping to engage the community to clarify this issue.

Firstly the Houston, TX based website avoiceformen.com was abused on wikipedia by an Australia based spammer some time ago. I agreed that the individual's behavior was improper, but argued that banning such an important website for the behavior of an unrelated user is as unhelpful as banning Youtube because of a single channel. Removing the blacklist on avoiceformen.com is important to my efforts to document the "manosphere" from a neutral perspective. For clarity the "manosphere" is a broad focus area, with some communities interested in men's rights, and others interested in Game/seduction who oppose the men's rights movement, it is not a single purpose issue. However as the largest men's rights website in the manosphere, avoiceformen.com is indispensable to that documentation effort. The editors declined to remove avoiceformen.com from the blacklist on the basis of wikipedias policies on: External links, Verifiable, Reliable, Notable Sources, and pointed out a possible violation of Biographies of living persons

I responded on various talk pages that:

• Wikipedia's policy states that avoiceformen.com can be linked as an external source for articles about itself

Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.

• The subject's website can be used as a source

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites.

• The manosphere is notable

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

Avoiceformen.com has been described by the SPLC (and elsewhere) as part of the "manosphere". Wikipedia considers the SPLC a reliable source. The SPLC has described the manosphere as a significant movement. The manosphere is also notable in that it has been mentioned in mainstream media publications like Huffington Post, Business Insider, Reason Magazine, and All Voices, among others.

I argue that whether or not one considers the manosphere to be "fringe" is irrelevant. I have clearly stated I do not intend to represent that the manosphere's usage of any existing terms, or understanding of any concept they claim, are valid. I do not intend to represent any website's views as being authoritative for all of the manosphere. I have stated my intention is solely to document the manosphere, and represent their claims as their own in as balanced a manner as possible. Avoiceformen.com is certainly a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. Since a reputable source identifies avoiceformen.com as part of the manosphere, and the manosphere is notable, avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for a notable topic.

I would appreciate any guidance or feedback on this issue.

The earlier discussion on the blacklist is here: Ethicalv (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the manosphere isn't "notable" by Wikipedia standards, and we don't have any reliable sources to write about it. Even its proponents acknowledge that it exists only because of male bloggers writing about it, the same bloggers writing for "A Voice for Men", an activist, alternative news outlet. However, even that outlet isn't "notable" by our standards. It seems like there's no good reason to remove the link from the blacklist. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you could share the reasoning by which you reconcile the statement "the manosphere isn't notable" with the fact that it has been written about in major mainstream media, some of which I linked above. Those articles did not mention the manosphere in passing. They were about the manosphere in their entirety. This certainly qualifies as the "significant" coverage required in wikipedia's Notability policy. And you did repeat the same argument I refuted above that avoiceformen.com is not a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. If you disagree with the reasoning I gave, stating that avoiceformen.com is definitely considered a reliable source for the opinions of avoiceformen.com according to wikipedia's policies, I would appreciate if you would explicitly provide your reasoning. Ethicalv (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I already did. Those "links" are not about the "manosphere" nor do they lend notability to the concept or to Avoiceformen.com. The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center in their Spring 2012 Intelligence Report.[30] "A Voice for Men" are also named in the report. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A voice for men is redlinked for a reason ... a couple passing mentions in mainstream media aren't sufficient to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are fairly high. NE Ent 00:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A redlink isn't cause for it to be on the spam-blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@EthicalvThis seems a little backwards to me. We don't have pages for Manosphere or avoiceformen.com, do we? So why would we need to link to their official websites? Honestly, I doubt that they're notable to begin with, but I'd suggest you delay your efforts to get their website off the blacklist for use in an external links section until after we actually have pages on them (ideally until after their pages have survived deletion discussions). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this comment seems a little backwards to -me-. The default isn't for links to be on the spam-blacklist, only to be removed when certain conditions are met. Arkon (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a good reason to add this group to the blacklist and yet, still no good reason to remove them. I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation. Finally, we have a giant heaping dose of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here. Before starting this thread, User:Ethicalv was informed about the notability problems on his talk page. He ignored that information and decided to assert notability once again. It's interesting how the actions of an "Australian spammer" got this non-notable site blacklisted and how the actions of Ethicalv are indistinguishable from the spammer—asking the same questions over and over again, hoping to get a different response. He did this on the blacklist discussion as well. Note, if the user could point to a single reliable source that is part of avoiceformen.com that could conceivably be used as a source on Wikipedia, that would be appreciated. I'm going to go out on a limb and say there isn't one, so this entire discussion seems to be about how to best get the site removed from the blacklist so that the spamming can begin again. Not good. You want to talk about how women are oppressing you? Great, do it on your private website, not here. Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(SO MANY EC'S)There may have been good reasons to blacklist this, yes. I don't know the full history here, but looking at the spam-blacklist page, there are quite a few different options other than putting them on the list. Were any of these tried?Notability in this case is a red herring in regards to it being on the list or not. As far as this person being the spammer, no idea, but if so, the second option of 'Will blocking a single user solve the problem?' seems more logical. Arkon (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope this intrusion is not unwelcome, but I tried to help the user before by pointing out that "Manosphere" is a neologism and getting avoiceformen unblacklisted is not likely to help him document the so-called cause. Even a Google search for "manosphere movement" only turns up results that say it is not a movement, and even the AVoiceforMen website itself defines it as a collection of websites, etc, and usually more specifically as a "phenomenon". I don't want to quote from a blacklisted website but it is worth considering this, EthicalV. -Wieldthespade (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from, I think his reasoning is pretty...bad. Heck, I think the site itself is terrible. But again, your question really has nothing to do with it being on the blacklist. Arkon (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've checked out the website, and I can't think of any remotely conceivable reason we would ever link to it in a WP article. Nor has the OP provided any. I do see a plausible potential for further abuse should it be delisted. I therefore see no possible reason to delist the site. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I think a good argument could be made that the site itself could have an article. It does have multiple mentions in some RS's. I still think that's a red herring though. Arkon (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon, Mark Arsten: I created a page for the manosphere in my ongoing effort to document it. It is awaiting approval. This blacklisting was causing trouble. That's how the issue came up.

@Arkon I agree that a website shouldn't be blacklisted by default. Thanks for your clarification.

@Viriditas. You said:

"The links you provided are about the listing of misogynistic hate groups".

My point is that those groups were EXPLICITLY identified in the SPLC and those mainstream media articles as a phenomenon noted as the "manosphere". They were not just called "misogynistic hate groups".

And those sites identified are also notable independently of the manosphere. Game/Seduction Blogger Roosh for example (who has been written about in newspaper articles, and talked about on TV shows around the world) is certainly notable. Avoiceformen.com has been mentioned in CBS News, Ms. Magazine, Bangor Daily News, and the New York Times.

Furthermore it is worthwhile to consider whether those groups themselves would be a more accurate source of their own opinions. Taking Roosh for example, without in any way advocating for his positions, it's useful that his blog should be allowed as an authoritative source of his own opinions to maintain balance. While wikipedia accepted sources like the SPLC may identify him as a dangerous hate criminal, he may or may not express a different opinion on whether seducing women qualifies him for being put on a list that the SPLC normally reserved for terrorists.

@Viriditas. You said:

"I'm also having a hard time buying the whole "Australia based spammer" bit when the group is mostly a one-man operation..

There is no evidence it is a one man operation and strong evidence to suggest it is not. The website lists a staff as well as listing podcasts and an associated radio station.

@Viriditas. You said:

"Please point to a single page in the domain of avoiceformen.com that can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Just one.

I would ask that we tone down the provocative and highly conflictual language. We are all working towards a common goal of making wikipedia better. My answer is that regardless of whether the content on the site is objectionable, "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com. That is the entire argument that I have not received a reply from you on. Ethicalv (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

To summarize:

• "all" pages in avoiceformen.com are reliable sources for the opinions of avoiceformen.com
• avoiceformen.com is notable
• whether or not one agrees with the opinions expressed on avoiceformen.com is irrelevant to documenting them in a neutral way

Ethicalv (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Adviceformen would indeed be a valid source to use in an article about the website. It is highly unlikely that there will ever be an article about the website. If there ever is an article about the website, what generally happens is the blacklist entry is altered to allow the main page of the site to be linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ethicalv, the solution is and has been very simple. Create an article about avoiceformen that does not get deleted, and you will have shown it's worth removing from the blacklist. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll make this my last comment on this, unless someone asks me some questions. I really am not a fan of the fact that we went straight to the nuclear option on this. Putting a site on the blacklist is suppose to be "the last resort". Arkon (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the site is not even a reliable source about themselves, as it is unduly self-serving. See WP:SELFPUB. Basically, everything on the site is completely and utterly worthless for any conceivable purpose in WP, especially as the site itself is extremely unlikely to meet our notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dominus Vobisdu said:

"the site is not even a reliable source about themselves

Your statement appears to set your own personal preference over wikipedia's entire set of written policies saying otherwise. Wikipedia's policies ensure polite collaboration between editors. None of us is meant to set our own "law of the jungle". In any case I believe we're reached concensus from those who have actually addressed the issue that avoiceformen.com is a reliable source for itself. That is progress. Ethicalv (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arkon: I agree that it was highly improper to "go straight to the nuclear option". What can we do about this? Someguy1221 suggested to write an article about it that didn't get deleted, and that would be grounds for removing the ban. However that seems very backwards. One could invest much time in creating content that was in the end just banned. It would be helpful to address the issue up front. Ethicalv (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, I'm not sure blacklisting really affects a whole lot here. If you want to use the site as a source in an article about the webpage while it's blacklisted, just fill in the Cite web template but don't include the url. To be honest though, I think you might find it to be a waste of time if you try to start new pages about men's rights websites. They'll most likely be deleted--sorry, but we have fairly high inclusion standards for websites. Why not spend your time trying to improve the existing articles in Category:Men's rights? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arkon was wrong in their observation - this site was blacklisted in October for good reason. Why are we still talking about this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We are still talking about this because we are being trolled silly. Ethicalv is singularly focused on reviving blacklisted websites and restoring deleted articles by rewriting them with unreliable sources. Look at how long this nonsense has been going on just over at Mangina. The absurdity continues with declined AfC versions of Manosphere, Mangina, Dalrock, female solipsism, rationalization hamster, NAWALT, white knight, marriage strike, beta provider, and who could forget, cock carousel. At some point someone is going to need to put a fork in this and say it's done. He won't listen, and doesn't care what the guidelines or policies say. He's playing games by forum shopping back and forth, asking the same questions over and over again, and trying to find someone who will contradict what everyone has already told him several times. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is the proper venue for evaluating links to individual pages for white-listing on a case-by-case basis. If Ethicalv can come up with any single page on avoiceformen.com that can conceivably be used as a reliable source in an article, then that page will receive fair consideration and likely be white-listed. There is no need for further discussion here. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

What an outfit

Further information: /Archive239 § Alan Liefting, categories in userspace, and bite; /Archive240 § Topic ban for Alan Liefting; /Archive241 § Request to lift a topic ban; /Archive242 § Request to lift a topic ban; User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On categorisation; and User:Alan Liefting/Essays/Stub categories are project categories

So you lot have blocked me from doing category related edits. Have a look at this piss poor outcome: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Bibliographies by subject. FFS... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• The corps has. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a military expression. Short for "The corps has gone to shit." Usually used when talking about the good ol' days. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Alan, are you just going to keep starting threads here hoping that at some point some gullible admin will decide we can't possibly manage our categories without your personal input? FYI that is the least likely outcome. As I said in the last thread where we tried to get you to stop pissing and moaning about your topic ban, your WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Let it go, you are only making the day when the topic ban is lifted move farther away with this persistent complaining about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• That was a perfectly valid procedural close and not even relevant to AN. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • While starting a Cfd w/o adding the notification templates to the relevant categories is a spectacularly bad idea to start with, I have to wonder if filing the nomination iteslf was a violation of the topic ban, since Wikipedia: space isn't mainspace. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • (EC) If it isnt, Its pretty clear with the above posting it should be. Perhaps a discussion should be had to extend the topic ban to mentioning catagories anywhere? Obviously if you are under a topic ban for something, and you want to take an action that requires you to do further actions covered under the ban, then a sensible person would not do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Let's not shift the goal posts. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
        • I prefer to think of it as removing the posts altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Alan, is this type of stuff of yours going to keep happening? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Give the guy a fucking break, please. Nobody has questioned his faithfulness to the project, and it's to be expected that there will be a period of acclimation to his new status, so it's incumbent on all of us to give him a little leeway to express himself, and not raise a shitstorm about it when he does. I ask every one of you to contemplate what it would be like if you were prevented from contributing in your own little corner of Wikipedia, and use that feeling as a stepping stone to empathize with what Alan is going through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • BMK, I don't think anyone is questioning his faithfulness. However, comments like the beginning of this thread reek of "you cannot do this without me, your project is a joke without my protection... you bunch of imbeciles for preventing me from stopping this horrible damage" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Let's please have less of the "Oh it's Alan Leifting yet again!" and a little bit more rational thought. Alan Leifting was banned, by my reading, for xyr recategorizing of pages outwith the article namespace — user-space draft articles, images, and so forth — in a ham-fisted and destructive manner that is, in xyr own words, "too fiddly" to do the right way that doesn't blank entire draft articles written by other people.

  Are we really extending that to being unable to nominate a category at CFD for renaming? Was Alan Leifting renaming categories or nominating categories at CFD ever a problem? Was xyr adding {{cfr}} to a category page ever a problem? It seems not, by my reading of the past discussions. If it isn't, we shouldn't be making silly procedural knots out of it just because Alan Leifting has managed to get this issue into four successive archives of this noticeboard. (Although it does seem that Alan Leifting has deliberately tried to create the procedural knot, in order to then complain about it.) If it is, then it should be clarified, with diffs (for which there are none in the past discussion), that Alan Leifting's Categories for Discussion nomination behaviour is also a problem subject to this remedy.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well renaming/nominating catagories may not have been a problem for him before. It is now. This isnt a case of people piling on Alan, if he had just used common sense in the first place, people would not feel the need to comment. Here is a simple clarification: Alan, dont start anything procedually you know you cant complete as it would violate your topic ban. There, its clarified for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

So...why didn't someone help him and tag the categories for him? Nothing wrong with that. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Slow speedy

Template:Allele has been in the speedy queue for over 24 hours. Why is it not yet deleted? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably because it doesn't fit the G8 criterion. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Besides, "Speedy" is anything less than 7 days. Please Hammer, don't tell me you're going back into your old AFD/CSD/PROD behaviours that have got you in trouble in the past - nom's like this one aren't too promising (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what his previous behavior was, but this CSD nom isn't so bad; just not what the criterion's for. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It does too. It's dependent on Allele (band), which was deleted several times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you want to continue a discussion about the propriety of WK's action, here, I suppose that's up to you. But reversing an admin's determination on a speedy is inappropriate. I've removed the tag. Leave it alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's not dependent on the article in the same way that a redirect to the article or its talk page is, which are the normal targets of G8. Navboxes are used on many different pages; that's their whole point. Now, this one won't be used, because none of the topics it would be used on are notable, but it's not dependent on a deleted page. I get why you did it, which is why I said above that it isn't so bad, but if you're angling for a SNOW/IAR speedy deletion, using a CSD criterion meant only for technical housecleaning is not the right way to go about it. Anyway, what's the harm of letting it sit through "God knows how long" at TfD? It's a template, it's not in mainspace, what's the urgent problem here? Let TfD do its thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I would also decline the speedy, WK simply beat me to it. GiantSnowman 16:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Because I've seen TFDs sit and sit and sit and sit AND SIT AND SIT AND SIT way too long. There's no point in keeping this one second longer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• You asked why the template hadn't been deleted 24 hours after you tagged it. Now you have your answer. If you want to create a new CSD criterion for "useless template", I could see the logic there, but AN ain't the place for the discussion, and G8 ain't the criterion to shoehorn that into. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)TPH, your eagerness to delete lots of articles very quickly is concerning. GiantSnowman 16:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• TPH has now slapped a G6 on the template. Although it's a better criterion than a G8, I came close to declining it, in part because the real rationale is that the template is not useful, and if a G6 could be used for all such templates, than arguably there needs to be another T* criterion. Also, TPH's comment and about sitting too long is silly. As WK points out, who cares? It's not doing any harm. There's really an attitudinal problem here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• CSD declined. The addition was extremely POINTy and I strongly suggest TPH waits for the TFD discussion to finish. GiantSnowman 17:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Given the number of contributors to the template, and given reliable sources were found for the band, making it a "near miss" AfD, I'm not sure I'd call it "uncontroversial". I think you're just going to have to send it to TFD. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's already at TFD, was sent there 2 days ago. TPH is just impatient. GiantSnowman 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's particularly disruptive to tag a page for uncontroversial speedy deletion when speedy deletion has just been declined twice. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like my original comment 2 lines down from TPH's original post (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are also still two articles that transclude the template. That's a very good reason to let the TfD run for a while. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

One of which is at AFD itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but until it is deleted, CSDing the template is not uncontroversial. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, you keep asking me what's the harm in letting this wait. Well, I ask: what's the harm in deleting it now? Why should it continue to stink up TFD for weeks? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we default to "keep", not to "delete". We keep things unless there is a reason to delete them, not delete them unless there is a reason to keep them. That a template is useless may in fact be a good reason to delete it, but consensus that it's useless is determined through a TfD, not a maintenance speedy deletion. TL;DR: burden of proof is on you. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Okip socking

I have just blocked a number of socks used by Okip (talk · contribs) to abuse the XfD processes. I gave Okip themself a two-week block, but given the relatively long history of that editor (previously as Ikip) I thought it best to bring the matter here for examination.

Blocked socks:

• Dragdrag (talk · contribs)
• Calendar2 (talk · contribs)
• Spoildead (talk · contribs)

All are  Confirmed with checkuser (and, in the case of the link to Okip, also through a supressed revision). — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is quite sad. I know Ikip/Okip positions are controversial, but I thought he had more integrity. I hope he understands his errors and goes back. This route is not going to bring him any good. --Cyclopia^talk 15:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• I reached the same conclusion on this following a non-CU trail (including one account that Coren didn't list, but did block). Here's what I've found, working backwards from present edits along the trail:

Down the rabbit hole

In November 2012, Spoildead continues a conversation at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Batman_tas&action=history started by Calendar2, as if he was the same person Calendar2 made edits to Scentura from 2011-2012 Scentura was created by user:Calendar in 2007. Calendar maintains the article through June 2009. Calendar2 says that he is Calendar and created the article. An oversighted edit directly links Calendar and Ikip to each other In June, 2009, Ikip is blocked. Calendar also disappears in June 2009. Ikip is listed as an alternate account of Okip Which circles us back to October 2012, where Okip expressed a sentiment that sounds a whole lot like what Spoildead's been saying today in ARS-related discussions this week

Given the length of the socking here, and the fact that it's being used to push a philosophy as well as attack others (see Spoildead's behavior in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list (2nd nomination)), I would support an indefinite block for Ikip/Okip based on the combination of disruptive history and long-term deceptive socking. This does not appear to be a person who has any interesting in playing by community rules. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question Do you mean that Dragdrag and Calendar2 were also abusing XFD? All I can see for Calendar is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scentura (2nd nomination), and nothing at all for Dragdrag. Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that these accounts have been used in serious violation of WP:SOCK. The one discussion where I see an overlap (the user talk page of Batman tas) was rather trivial. Did I miss something? Simply having other accounts with trivial overlaps in editing shouldn't be cause for a swath of blocks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It looks to me like Spoildead is the account that was being used to abuse the XfD process in furtherance of Ikip's preferred inclusionism POV. Note, for example, that I warned Spoildead about making personal attacks and accusations against delete voters on XfDs, behavior which Ikip has a history of being blocked for - it appears to me he was using Spoildead to make problematic edits to XfDs that he knew Ikip/Okip wouldn't get away with. Calendar2 appears to have been used mostly to maintain Scentura, Calendar a combination of Scentura and various health and video game articles, and Dragdrag LGBT-related articles. Per a Wikistalk report, however, [I|O]kip and the Calendar accounts have crossed repeatedly on articles and noticeboards. Absent Spoildead's behavior, it could be argued that this set of socks was a sort of inept way of compartmentalizing different genre edits (though they do often violate the part of WP:SOCK that says socks shouldn't edit project space - Calendar, Calendar2, and Spoildead all have done so - and some of them don't stay consistently in one genre or another), but Spoildead pushes it over the line to "purposely using an account so people would not know that the person making attacks and accusations was someone who had a history of making attacks and accusations". It's standard procedure to block an entire sockfarm when found, even if some of the socks haven't broken policies otherwise - remember, these are all one person, and blocks are intended for users, not accounts. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) If several of the accounts have been disruptive, it's a textbook violation of WP:SCRUTINY - spreading out one's policy violations over multiple accounts so as not appear to be so disruptive an editor that a block is in order. I'm not familiar with any of the accounts here, except from skimming through the ARS MfD, but if more than one of them has been disruptive, than it sounds like a pretty standard application of SOCK. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Participation in AFDs at all with a sock account is a serious violation of WP:SOCK. Per WP:ILLEGIT, alternate accounts cannot edit project space. Compound that with the fact that he was using the alternate to edit project space pertaining to the ARS, and you have about as serious of a violation as you can achieve.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hmm, upon further investigation, I think there are some serious violations from back in 2009. Calendar created the article List of zombie novels, apparently also contributing to it with an IP account, and Ikip argued vociferously to keep the article when it was at articles for deletion apparently without ever disclosing his connection with the other account. Still, that is a bit stale. Unless there are some recent instances where any of these accounts have been used in serious violation, I am still not seeing the basis for present action on the basis of sockpuppetry. If it is on the basis of recent disruption with the other accounts being blocked to prevent their use for evasion then I would understand.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• It's recent as well. Spoildead has been used to canvass ARS supporters.—Kww(talk) 18:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Spoildead's current behavior in itself makes it an abuse of alternate accounts, really (serious evasion of scrutiny, and frankly disruptive behavior even in isolation); that the other accounts have also been improperly used in project space simply makes it straightforward sockpuppetry in my estimation. I think Okip really should stay to one account at this point, given that he now has a track record of abusing alternates. — Coren ^(talk) 18:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Based on Ikip's block log and the long history of socking, I see no reason to tolerate this editor's presence. I'd change that two-week block to indefinite.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Now that I think about it, given that the MfD concerns ARS where Ikip was previously disruptive, it does some reasonable to consider the involvement of the Spoildead account to be a very serious violation of the spirit of WP:SOCK, as well as the letter.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing less than a six-month block pbp 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Indefinite block, we've had enough of his disruptive behavior, and this is much worse than normal sockpuppetry on articles as it undermindes the AfD process. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have to say this really pisses me off. I was helping that supposed new account with an article they created. Now it turns out it was an experienced user pretending they didn't know how to put a real article together, (or maybe he really didn't after all this time?) and one of the worst of the worst of the ARS "battleground mentality" set at that. I have been trying to help that project move back towards a more mainstream approach and away from the overly confrontational unhelpful approach that user like Okip/Ikip/travb/inclusionist/whoever he is this week and others perpetuated there in the past. His last post under his actual name there was essentially to try and turn this back, to encourage newer members to confront and harass anyone who claimed they had a battleground mentality. Okip just doesn't get it. He has "rage quit" several times, and now this, and possibly more going back years. He is a negative influence on this project and the ARS in particular. They need help finding their way to being a project that is about content, not fighting and dirty tricks, for their sake as much as the rest of WP, open the door, push him through it, close it and lock it. In other words, indef block, at least six months before any appeal per WP:OFFER, and then it should only be considered if he agrees to permanently limit himself to one account only, and not to engage in WP:BATTLE behavior ever again.Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 20:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)