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)

Request amendment of Lucia Black's topic/interaction ban

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

---

Hello all. I'd like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, a new request for formal mediation by User:ChrisGualtieri. This is the dispute between him, User:Ryulong, and User:Lucia Black about how we cover the anime series Ghost in the Shell. Specifically, it is about whether we should have an article on the series as a whole, or whether that content should be merged into other related articles. As many readers of this board are probably aware, Lucia Black is topic-banned from "all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed", and is also subject to an interaction ban with ChrisGualtieri. Both sanctions are due to expire on November 1. As a prospective mediator of this case, I would like to see Lucia's topic and interaction bans amended to allow her to take part in the mediation.

I have been in touch with Lucia via email, and she is receptive to the idea of mediation. Ryulong has also agreed to take part, so the only obstacle now to the mediation proceeding is Lucia's sanctions. I don't think it would be very useful to leave Lucia out of any mediation proceedings, as any conclusion reached would fall apart when she was allowed back to the topic area in November. And if she participates, we may well be able to work out a resolution that satisfies everyone. So I see many positives and not many negatives from amending her bans. Would others here be willing to agree to this? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I should remind everyone that Lucia is also topic-banned from WP:ANI. Given that this isn't (quite) ANI, and that this wasn't her starting a thread about somebody, but me starting a thread about her, I think it would be only fair to allow her to comment here if she wants. Let's go easy on the block button if she posts here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Normally, I'd support such a thing, but she really hasn't been doing very well on this interaction ban so far. About a month in, she already appealed to have it removed, largely on the grounds that it was "unjust", which was unanimously rejected, and she's clearly being warned about breaking it here too. I'd like to see other's thoughts I guess... Sergecross73 msg me 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason not to allow this, provided it is abundantly clear to her that the exemption is for purposes of participating in mediation only and she is still to stay away from the actual content and related talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am neutral about making the exception, but if it's supported, then perhaps it should specify participation on, and only on, a couple of named pages. Also, Lucia should be publicly warned (e.g., on her user talk page) that any behavior during that mediation that is even slightly undesirable will be given in evidence to get her topic ban lengthened, so that she understands the stakes for her behavior here, and everyone knows that she understands them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Actually, communications made in formal mediation can't be used as evidence in conduct dispute venues such as ANI or arbitration. Medcom has a policy of protecting this kind of communication so that parties are able to speak freely without worrying about it being used against them later. The reason for this is that disputes are usually a lot harder to resolve when the parties are trying to make themselves look good, or other parties look bad, with future discussions at ANI or Arbcom in mind. Taking this out of the equation lets the parties focus on the actual content rather than on each other. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have had little interaction with her. All recent and mostly bad faith on her part. If I had my way I would extend it to full en:wp block for a very long time. She just doesn't seem to interact very well with other editors and makes many disruptive edits.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support specific exception to the T-Ban and I-Ban to edit exclusively the Mediation discussion page. I understand MedCom has a history of functioning independently and if all parties involved in the mediation agree to these exceptions, I can see no harm. When bureaucracy gets in the way of progress and productive work, you know what to do. Lucia knows any unacceptable behaviour will not be ignored anyhow. I sincerely hope this won't cause more problems again. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Judging by all the ranting she's throwing on my talk page to me and people watching my talk page, over my above comments, I'm going to go ahead and say she's not really able to hold a rational discussion to editors in general, let alone someone she's got a history of not getting along with to the point of needing an interaction ban, on a topic she's topic banned from. I was intrigued by "WhatAmIDoing"'s idea, but since that was shot down as well, I just can't see these mediations going well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  If the mediation doesn't go well, then that's that; we don't reach a consensus, and we continue with the status quo. However, if mediation does go well, then the dispute gets resolved, and the editors involved can go about their editing a little bit happier. The exception to Lucia's bans would only be for participating on mediation pages, so the change we are discussing wouldn't affect normal life on-wiki. The worst-case scenario is that the parties spend some time discussing the issues, and everything continues as it is now, which really doesn't seem too bad to me. Also, mediations are a lot more structured than talk-page interactions, or indeed most other interactions between editors on Wikipedia, so there is a lot less scope for editors to go off-topic or get on each others nerves. This is why I say that I can't see any bad things coming from this; the worst we can have is the status quo, and the best we can have is one less problem on Wikipedia. It seems worth a shot to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Lucia Black has frequently violated her topic ban. The appropriate response to this is most certainly not to loosen up the restrictions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • @serge.You already opposed serge, why bother making another oppose? What you could do is edit your own comment. There's a policy in mind for such things. and please keep you personal bias to yourself. If I'm having an argument in your talkpage, its because I'm tired of you interfering in everything ANI I bring up. I would like some fresh eyes when it comes to ANI. You have your own "personal" reasons. And it shows outside AN/ANI. What you think of me personally doesn't outweight the other aspects. For once in your life as an admin, actually start to see things more objectively when it comes to issues relating to me. Would any admin actually use an argument from an editor against them in something unrelated?
  • @lukeno94. Define "frequent"? I've edited template an american tv show neither officially considered anime nor manga. But warned because it could be "construed" as such. That's not violating the topic ban, that's pushing for the sake of enforcement. WP:ANIME doesn't have these american shows in its scope. And the reason why that matters is because of what the topic ban is even for. I've discussed about GAN stealing that related to a personal issue regarding the topic/interaction ban. "Frequent" is an exagerration. If it was "frequent" I would've been blocked.
  • You both bullied me enough in the last ANI. Can't you concentrate on real vandals? I know a dozen of editors who are much more incivil than me, the only difference is you are the only ones who interacted with me.Lucia Black (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can you point me in the direction that policy that doesn't allow me to make 2 separate posts, one as a comment, and then one as an official "Oppose" comment? Then explain to me why it matters. Then explain to me why you're trying to enforce this, when 99% of the time you don't even indent your messages. (See this is why discussion with Lucia go so terribly so often. Its either this sort of nonsense, or bad faith accusations and misinterpretations of policies. This is why she gets these sorts of bans to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia, although I can't remember the specifics, claiming you haven't violated the topic ban is simply false, and you know that full well. There have been multiple occasions, brought up at a recent ANI thread or two, where you were clearly found to have violated the topic ban, and the interaction ban; but you got away scot-free. You need to stop making personal attacks, and stop making false accusations of "bullying". The answer to this is simple: step back from all areas covered by your topic ban and your interaction ban, or you will end up blocked. That's not a threat, that's a policy-based fact. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You are the one providing false information. i have only been brought up "once" in ANI since my interaction/topic ban, and from the same anonymous sockpuppet who just wants to cause trouble which was quickly closed. Other than that, being brought up in ANI "multiple" times is false. i have not gotten a single warning on my talkpage for such occasions. SO how can i accept what you said as true?.Lucia Black (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support if and only if Chris G supports. NE Ent 18:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Chris has clarified this below, but actually he was the editor that requested the mediation, and he had already mentioned his desire for an exception to Lucia's topic/interaction bans on the mediation page. (I should probably have made that a little clearer in my summary above, sorry.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Terrible idea. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but only if ChrisGualtieri agrees as well, and only for the purposes of mediation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am going to say let her take part in the mediation and that page only. Also, Lucia Black has been blocked for 48 hours on Sept 5th for the topic and interaction ban violation.[1] Though Lucia has once again violated her interaction ban by continuing to attack to me on Sergecross's page, but I rather not have her blocked and see what mediation can do to resolve the content problem, though I think she should be on a week or longer block if she violates the topic ban or interaction ban outside this explicit and narrow definition: "Mediation page(s) only". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying this, Chris. A quick comment on "mediation page only" vs. "mediation pages only": I think the definition should be "Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2, and any subpages of Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2". That should give us plenty of room for discussions and/or drafts and still prevent the mediation from affecting other areas of Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • In that case as Mr. Stradivarius has pointed out. The "Wikipedia talk:Requests for Mediation" and all subpages like "Wikipedia talk:Requests for Mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2". This way we have wiggle room and the focus is WP:RFM sections only. I don't think we need to go and make it airtight legalese, but this scope is extremely narrow. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Under no set of circumstances have I seen this nucleus of editors ever interact positively. An interaction ban means exactly that, A topic ban means exactly that. It is my viewpoint that the conduct issues must be resolved prior to the content issues being resolved. I am open however to a 1 strike regime (1 warning, then a block for a second failure to observe normal wikipedia behavior) to allow LuciaBlack the opportunity to participate in this instance of a DR process. I encourage the mediators to keep a firm grasp on the behavior leashes as previous interactions and attempts at DR have been worthless, long ranging, no holds barred brawls to argue about every piece of contention and massive dumps of repeated arguments. Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support because the ban expires in a month anyway, and we don't get in the way of MedCom, and ChrisGualteri, who at least some of the sanctions were to protect from misconduct, has agreed to it. However, I also think that the ban be lifted to only deal with the relevant mediation pages. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, because I think that mediation can only have a chance at working when all relevant parties are involved; the alternative, from a practical point of view, is simply to wait until November to start the mediation. I trust that Mr. Stradivarius will keep the mediation moving forward properly, and, if Lucia should get out of hand, will be summarily removed from the mediation anyway. Also, to clarify, like everyone including Mr. Stradivarius has said, this exemption would be only for the mediation pages, not any other pages including the article and talk pages that are the subject of the mediation. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User:Qwyrxian. I see no reason for mediation pages to be edited with parties involved. -
  

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

it would be great if a decision could be made soon. i'm already getting the mediation invite. and it's not like i'm going to be touching any other page other than mediation pages and obviously, it's mediation, so theres little room for incivility.Lucia Black (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Right now I'm seeing 7 !votes supporting unblock, 5 against. John Carter (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lucia isn't blocked - I presume you mean that you see 7 !votes supporting an exception to her topic/interaction bans, and 5 against? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support exception. Its the most intelligent approach, and allows for a real dialogue. Irondome (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support exception for MedCom only, as a believer in mediation. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like this will get much more input, so could an uninvolved admin please close this thread? I'd rather not keep the participants waiting too much longer, so I think it would be best to have a decision one way or the other. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• FYI, ChrisG and Ryulong are at it again, arguing, and one has reported the other at ANI again. So, this isn't the only thing that's holding up mediation again. (These three are at each other's throats non-stop - I don't see how you could envision this mediation going well. You must have supreme confidence in the process or something...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a characterization. I reverted Ryulong once, and Ryulong knew he'd break 3RR if he continued to edit war with Adam, yet did so anyways. After Ryulong broke 3RR he then filed for page protection. In the three days since someone else (not I) took him to ANI he has continued to abuse rollback, yell in all caps at other editors and give a hostile OWN issue, which while it may be the same issue of the mediation case, is not limited to a single page. At what point does an editor have to simply allow months of bad faith accusations to stand simply because a content matter is pending? I don't like Ryulong's constant cursing, reverting proper and good faith edits and constant edit warring and in the three days since half a dozen editors expressed concern he has gotten only worse. So I am at ANI to ask for 1RR for Ryulong for one month given the hundreds of problematic edits done not just at A&M, but all over Wikipedia. Ryulong's ArbCom case is even cited in ROLLBACK; so I don't think it is just "me" who has a problem with the actions. Ryulong may mean well, and I do thank him for fixing things, but to say we at "at each other's throats non-stop" certainly isn't accurate and I've been patient and restrained against the bad faith accusations repeatedly made against me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as a judgment for or against you in your situation with him, merely a statement that arguing is happening both now and continually with varying combinations of the three of you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah okay, I misunderstood. Sorry, I haven't been that active since I've been very busy with work for awhile and I took it as if this matter is non-stop when there are significant breaks between issues and they are not even on the same subject or issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: That's right - we can't start mediation while the editors' behaviour is under discussion per point eight of the prerequisites for formal mediation ("No related dispute resolution proceedings are active in other Wikipedia forums"). If we did attempt mediation while the parties were at ANI, I think it's fair to assume that the parties would be too distracted by the proceedings there to concentrate on any content questions. If mediation does go ahead after the ANI thread (and if I was the mediator, which looks likely), I would ask the parties to agree not to post about each other at any admin noticeboards for its duration. If that agreement is broken, the mediation can be suspended or closed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Current count now seems to be 9 in favor of lifting the restrictions for the purpose of mediation, and 5, at least some of whom may have made statements without the full details of the proposed limitations on editing to continue outside the mediation pages, opposing it. I can't close the thread myself, having expressed an opinion above, but I do think that it would probably be a good idea to allow participation in mediation, if it is to take place, sooner rather than later. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support- this seems to be a sensible way to proceed. Reyk _YO! 00:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support exception for the MedCom only. I know nothing about anime & manga (in fact I had to look it up in Wikipedia a couple of years ago to find out what it is) but anywhere else I have come across Lucia I have found her TL;DR diatribes to be exasperating and obstinate to the point of disruptive. She clearly has a problem of collegial interaction and if allowed to participate on the MedCom case, she will have to keep calm or expect even stricter sanctions than she has been given already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  @Kudpung: Actually, we can't base any sanctions for Lucia on her behaviour in mediation. I've mentioned this above as well, but MedCom has a policy of protecting communications made in formal mediation so that they cannot be used to determine sanctions at ANI or ArbCom, etc. This is to remove the motivation for parties to "bait" each other during mediation with a view to getting sanctions enacted at a later date. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support exception I would love to see this long running dispute finally solved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Count now seems to be 12 favoring an exception to the ban, 5 against, and the thread has been open for about two weeks. I would be very, very appreciative if someone were to review the discussion and maybe close the thread, and I think those involved in the proposed mediation would as well. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please can someone close this down now - it's been open for far too long. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please move Talk:Music_of_the_SaGa_series#Collapsed_sections

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

---

I am not sure of the proper procedure for this, but can someone please move and/or close Talk:Music_of_the_SaGa_series#Collapsed_sections to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Collapsing_music_track_lists? If not, please let me know what is the proper procedure. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Post to prevent automatic archiving. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (which is transcluded at the top here) would probably be the "proper" place to put it, but all adminy stuff seems to be super-backlogged right now. Ansh666 04:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:AfD backlogged

We have open nominations for every day since last Thursday, and there are some day with many nominations. If you have time please consider closing a couple of nominations.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

And non-admins can help by participating in discussions, as well. Part of the problem is when consensus isn't clear, closers are hesitant to make a difficult call. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

And if anyone wants to do anything even more boring, WP:PUF is backlogged even worse. Legoktm (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:FFD and the ever-backlogged WP:NFCR. You don't have to be an admin to close discussions on WP:NFCR. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Everything back to last Tuesday, actually; I've closed all the remaining ones for Tuesday and Wednesday, and will try to look at the rest later (there are a lot though - over 30 for Friday alone). I (along with a few others) do tend to patrol the overdue days but I've been very inactive in the last week; some more admins looking at WP:AFDO would be great. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, for now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old has been cleared up (with two that I probably shouldn't close myself remaining). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I closed one of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

And I closed the other, and bunch the day before yesterday. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I can do a few NACs if you like. (Or get off my ass, find somebody to nom and co-nom an RfA, and close lots of them, whatever's easier) I have noticed a backlog, with a number of AfDs I've participated in hanging round for longer, and I've been concerned that a number of debates have been relisted that really shouldn't have been - for instance, I would have called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Alternative Media Group as a straight "delete" without relisting. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: - proceeding with your RFA would be an investment for the future...GiantSnowman 12:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD's is a task I usually perused using my admin account ... I occassionally take a poke at a few in my current fur ES&L 14:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The best possible thing you can do is to improve an article so a "keep" vote is more obvious, alleviating the need for relisting or making difficult calls. Unfortunately it's one of the most difficult. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes it's fairly easy: I no doubt spent less time making these changes [2], then all the time editors spent making comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Sikhism --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just a note to all of you admins who are doing this. Some things that I've seen while going through User:Snotbot/AfD report. 1) closing an AfD doesn't end at adding the tags to the AfD page. If it's "keep", "no consensus", or something of that sort (I think I saw a "keep but merge somewhere" in there), you have to go through and remove the AfD tags from the page, and add the Old AfD Multi template to the talk (most of these are from User:Darkwind and User:Mark Arsten). 2) If you're using an automated AfD closer (like User:Johnleemk's or User:Mr.Z-man's), the "delete" probably won't work if the page has been moved beforehand - it'll delete the pagemove redirect (DATA (Digital Asset Transfer Authority) --> Digital Asset Transfer Authority, Frederick D. Drake --> Frederick D. Drake, Jr., Skales (Ninjago) --> Skales, all of which were closed by User:Mark Arsten; The Iron Bubble Syndrome --> Iron bubble syndrome, closed by User:Drmies), so either the closer will need to check if the page is a redirect or some enterprising coder can try to fix up the tool. I'm in the process of fixing everything on Snotbot's page that doesn't require the tools to do. Thanks, Ansh666 06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC) (if you wish to reply, please ping me - I don't watch the dramuh-boards even if I read them frequently)

This is why I strongly urge people not to move pages while they're at AfD... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Or at least state on the AfD page that they've moved it. When I used to go through AfDs, that was one of the tasks, to see if anyone'd moved the page and make a comment. Unfortunately, school got in the way. Ansh666 17:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User who seemingly only exists to suck people into a weird maze of pages. Is this actionalble?

So I got a notification that Adeptzaire2 thanked me for an edit. That led me to User:Adeptzaire/አብ from the account Adeptzaire. From there, I kept getting bounced from poorly written page with odd links to poorly written page with odd links. Looking through the edit history, apparently all this person has done with their two accounts is set up an elaborate circular maze of userpages. I do believe in AGF, but in this case I think someone is trolling. Is this actionable? At the very least he's created a farm of useless pages that should all be deleted and is not using alternate accounts constructively. Possibly, it's this is a pair of accounts that exist as a joke and aren't here to productively edit, a block would be warranted. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• MfD might be an option. Reyk _YO! 06:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Forgot to link to this in the initial post, see Special:Contributions/Adeptzaire2 for evidence. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)To suggest deletion of userpages, please see WP:MFD. I'm too confused and lost to come up with better advice. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I've deleted a stray one of these in the article talk namespace--Talk:Adeptzaire2/አብ/ረዲረችት, for the record. As for further action, I dunno, I'm not really inclined to do anything. MfD en masse would be the place to go if you want to delete the pages; a reasonable move, though I'd personally say leave it if it stays in their userspace. As for a block...meh. They have a handful of edits in mainspace, which are not problematic save for a deleted article that can probably be chalked up to an editing test. Live and let live, I say, as long as it doesn't get too out of hand (especially in terms of expanding outside their user space) going forward. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hmmm, well, they just tried blanking this section without discussion, so maybe I'll change my tune. Oh well. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
• Well, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a free webhost... --Rschen7754 08:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

{{minnow}} What is wrong with adminania today? If it stomps like a troll... the only mainspace contributions (Adeptzaire2) I'm finding is a circular link of bogus redirects on 28 September. I've fixed the User:Adeptzaire2 redirect and left them a message. Could a bit-holder CSD (R3) the redirects without me having to tag 'em individually?
What I don't know is how to see how many other editors they're baiting with "Thanks" like they did Sven. I reviewed the WP:Notifications page and don't see any reference to a log. Does anyone here know if there is one and how to check it? NE Ent 16:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right, NE Ent. I didn't realize the redirects were pointing at each other; I just checked their current targets, which was correct, not their history, where I would've seen someone else who had fixed them. In my partial defense, I was really tired and jetlagged when I posted that, and should probably have stayed away from Wikipedia altogether; I'm just back after sleeping 12 hours to catch up. Blocking them is probably the right move; it's just that, for me, dicking around in userspace just doesn't rustle my jimmies. :P Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, it looks like Adeptzaire2 has only 4 thanks, to Sven and himself (here) and none from Adeptzaire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, we have a Thanks log? Is there a top 100 of thankers? Drmies (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, there is not only a thanks log, you can get a list of thanks you've given and another list of thanks you've received. I don't think anyone is collecting stats on thanks right now.

As I'm going through Wikipedia:Statistics, it's clear that WP has a spotty record of gathering stats on itself. Mostly, it has relied developers creating tools, many of which once worked years ago but no longer function. And stats for just a year or two doesn't tell you much.

You'd think that with a website as popular and important as WP, that WMF would really devote resources to research into the dynamics of wiki growth, changes and popularity of content, and examining Editor and Reader behavior to promote retention, training and recruitment. But, they haven't done so in a long-lasting, consistent way, unfortunately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Those wearing more cynical top-hats and monocles than I might suggest it's because the WMF is too busy working on "improvements" that nobody wants. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Writ Keeper, it's called WP:NOTHERE. I've tagged all of the weird bouncing pages for speedy deletion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

First I noticed a thanks log. Looks like he's been doing some thanking with himself, which seems a little... unseemly. The other one is thanked too I think. At least he's obvious about it though. II | (t - c) 04:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks, thanks for your good comments about the Thanks Notification. Besides the log mentioned above, we also track this notification, on this metrics dashboard, under 'notifications by category'. Since we deployed it on the English Wikipedia in May 2013, about 39k thanks notifications have been triggered, and this represents about 2% of total notifications sent during that period. Oliver Keyes is doing a bit more analysis about this feature, which may be helpful here as well. In the meantime, I will add that the community response to this feature has generally been favorable, as users seem to appreciate this quick way to show appreciation for productive edits, which encourages better collaborations on Wikipedia. Learn more about this project in this recent report. Hope this is helpful. Be well :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban request

See the "Request interaction ban" section of WP:ANI, where an interaction ban has been requested between Guy Macon and Ihardlythinkso. Coming here because ban discussions are normally held here, so watchers should see it. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Improving the instructions at the top of the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC validity review requested

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

---

I am concerned that a recently-closed RfC substantially violated WP:RFC, resulting in keeping away interested editors and biasing the ones who appeared. I would like the validity of this RfC ruled on. For details, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 8#Talk:Ayn Rand.23Request for comment: Qualifying .22philosopher.22 in the lead sentence, particular the first link in it, which summarizes my concerns. MilesMoney (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a content issue, not an administration issue. I respectfully point out that this is an inappropriate venue. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. If you click that link you will see that the user who closed the thread at ANRFC directed him to bring it here, and if I take the meaning correctly what is being asked for is a review of the RFC itself, not the underlying content issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• And having reviewed the supposed "violations" in the framing of the RFC I must agree that there are none and the opening statement was appropriately neutral. And the close looks perfectly fair and clearly had a lot of thought behind it. I therefore endorse both the RFC itself and the close, and remind the reporting user that consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you. I had no horse in this race, and tried to write a neutral RfC. Yworo (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In regards to my decision to close rather than declare the RfC null and void per Miles' arguments, I did not agree that the opening statement to the RfC was particularly malfomed:

1. Miles argued that the opening (seen here) was biased because it omitted material such as tertiary sources that favored use of qualifiers and lacked arguments based on Rand's academic standing. None of this is required in an RfC opening. Miles also objected the use of the word "opinion" to describe the use of "amatuer" and "self-styled" as qualifiers to describe Rand, which they were (because this description of Rand is not present in reliable sources).
2. There was disagreement between Yworo and Miles on the phrasing, where Miles attempted to correct the RfC opener with this statement which definitely does not present the topic neutrally, and this statement in a later section. Yworo later reverted these changes here and here. This disagreement was perhaps a little disruptive, but given that the argument of initial bias is questionable, I do not believe this is a valid reason to call the discussion biased.
3. Miles argued that because the RfC was only included in the Biographies subtopic and not the Religion and Philosophy subtopic, the article attracted insufficient participation from the proper venues. He argued that this omission "...brought in editors who were interested in biographies, not philosophy, making it difficult to bring them up to speed on the relevant issues. I didn't see any evidence that lack of education or interest in philosophy detracted or muddled the discussion.

What I do see, if anything, is a great deal of bludgeoning on the part of Miles in the discussion, and this request to question my close, while valid, seems to be a continuation of that behavior. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why was the RfC closed so quickly? I was in the process of developing a list of sources (I had already went through 13, published by Blackwell, OUP, CUP etc.) in order to offer an argument in the discussion. I would note that the discussion was mainly devoid of reference to reliable sources. The RfC started on September 24 and closed Oct 8th. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I asked for an admin to rule on its validity and close it on a policy basis so that it could be opened again neutrally. That's not what happened, which is fine. The sooner it's gone, the sooner we can move on. MilesMoney (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It was closed because MilesMoney specifically requested closure, here. It seems to have backfired on him. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@Atethnekos: the discussion actually started back in August. See Talk:Ayn Rand/Archive 46#Again.2C not a philosopher. And with 46 archive pages for Talk:Ayn Rand, I bet your RS has been hashed out previously. So I recommend you check. But please do feel free to improve the article. I hope you enjoy the foray! – S. Rich (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand: that edit shows explicitly that he requested it be closed on "the basis of policy, not consensus". But the RfC was closed on the basis of consensus, explicitly. I still think the RfC should have been let to run for longer, if even just up to the standard 30 days. The RfC was being edited substantively less than 3 hours before closure (compare: [3] and [4]). One can dismiss my would-be contribution as "hashed out" before having even seen it, but I think standards were not met with the result that I was not allowed to present it at all. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the close and in the ANRFC request, assessing consensus is assessing relevant, policy-based arguments. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@I JethroBT:, I think you misunderstand MilesMoney and Atethnekos. MilesMoney said, to paraphrase, 'please close this as malformed based on the procedural policy WP:RFC rather than weighing the merits and content policies.' After weighing the procedural policy, and finding it had not been violated, Atethnekos expected you to decline the close as you determined no procedural reason for close existed.--v/r - TP 13:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does make more sense to me when described that way. Thanks for clarifying. Given that consensus was fairly clear though, I did not see much harm in closing. @Atethnekos:, I'm open to hearing your arguments if you think they were 1) not considered in the present discussion and 2) present a compelling, new argument that would change consensus per Wikipedia:Closure_review#Challenging_a_closing under "Closures will often be changed by the closing editor without a closure review:" #1 and #3. You can leave those comments on my talk page. However, given that consensus was fairly clear this time around and was endorsed, it might be better to to simply wait until the next RfC on the topic, which I anticipate will happen in a month. It's up to you what you'd like to do. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

JethroBT did the right thing and did it well. The RfC was closed on the basis of consensus, and the various arguments about the lede were well laid out in the discussions. More importantly, no WP policy was violated in the discussion as the article complies with WP:POLICIES. The other issue concerns guidelines for reaching consensus. E.g., were guidelines followed in setting up the RfC or in how it was carried out? Perhaps, and perhaps not. But editors are smart enough to figure out what editing issues were at stake. They had their say in this regard. Since no POLICY has been violated as a result of the RfC, the issue that MM is concerned about – policy violation – does not provide a basis for reversing the results of the RfC. @I JethroBT: you did good. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Srich, aside from making another appearance in your whistle-stop and flattery tour for Admin candidacy, what earthly reason is there for you, an involved editor, to comment here after the matter has been reviewed and resolved? Please consider a ratchet down. SPECIFICO talk 16:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer, I shall take you up on it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 16:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Self-hatting own comments which are tangential to concern raised by MilesMoney. – S. Rich (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Specifico, I do not understand your comment. Seems that most of the editors in this discussion were involved in the Rand RfC. (Didn't you comment elsewhere on that talk page and comment on the same issues?) Please clarify how your comments help resolve the concerns that MilesMoney has raised here. (MM said: "I would like the validity of this RfC ruled on.") You might provide guidelines that say these involved editors (or any involved editors) should not "comment here after the matter has been reviewed and resolved". Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I created this section because I wanted the RfC's validity ruled on by an admin, not just an editor who chose to volunteer. I had expected an admin to respond to my closure request, so when that didn't happen, I came here. The RfC has since been ruled valid, and regardless of how I feel about the ruling, I am bound to accept it. As I said to Mark Arsten, "I will not dispute the results of this RfC nor edit against its stated consensus", and I'm going to continue living up to that.

So I'm not going to dispute the results, but I'm still going to comment on how we got there, because it wasn't quite right. I'm glad the RfC is closed, one way or the other, because I don't see how dragging it out any longer could have helped. In my view (which is contradicted by Beeblebrox), the RfC was too flawed to come up with a meaningful result. Best to clear it out of the way and move on. More deeply, I think it was a case of the tail wagging the dog. The lede has to reflect the article, so any progress has to be to the article as a whole before the lede can be updated to reflect it.

Anyhow, TParis is correct that I requested that the RfC be closed on a policy basis, not a consensus basis. The result I expected is that, if there was no willingness to close it on a policy basis, it would remain open. JethroBT took matters into his own hands and did more than I requested. It didn't much matter this time, but it's still a bad thing. Editors answering requests shouldn't just go off on their own.

My other concern is that JethroBT, in explaining his decision, admitted to some pretty basic factual errors. The biggest one is that he claimed there were no reliable sources for "amateur" or "self-styled". In fact, the two qualifiers are supported directly by the Oxford Companion to Philosophy and Reason.com, and nobody has seriously questioned their reliability. The counterarguments have been on other bases, some of them involving policy.

While I am still not disputing the results, I don't feel that this methodology was sound or should be repeated in other cases. In particular, if he made such basic errors, then I don't believe he was qualified to come to any conclusions. I would politely suggest that he avoid getting involved in RfC's if he does not have the time to invest in actually reading what was posted. It's highly counterproductive.

I would also have preferred it if Beeblebrox, not JethroBT, had explained their reasoning. I'm sure you can understand that "I don't see nothing wrong here" isn't a very satisfying explanation. If nothing else, I would have learned something if they'd explained their view of policy as it applies here.

Finally, I feel strongly that the behavior of both Yworo and Srich32977 here has been atrocious. They show a strong WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, and their subsequent actions on the article talk page were gross violations of WP:TPO; both took this as an opportunity to shut down discussions.

That's all. Once again, I want to remind you that I am not disputing the results, and I will remain bound by them. That doesn't mean things were done right, and it doesn't mean Yworo and Srich32977 should go unpunished for their behavior. Regardless, the matter of the RfC should be considered closed. Please consider this a post-mortem, as we're examining an issue that is very dead. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is dishonest of you to say "I'm not disputing the results" and then go ahead and dispute the results by criticizing pretty much every step of what happened. I see no link to any URL pointing to Reason.com in the discussion (nor anywhere on the page currently), and I already noted in my close why the removal from the Oxford Companion is not compelling on its own: Removal from a single compendium of philosophers does not seem to constitute a need to qualify the term. It's true that no one questioned the reliability of the Oxford Companion. But that wasn't really the point-- several other concerns about heavy reliance on this source were raised: [5], [6], [7], [8]. That you disagreed with all them does not null their arguments. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling me dishonest is simply a personal attack, as you are accusing me of intentional deception. I recommend that you redact that and accept that we have an honest disagreement.

Unfortunately, you've made another factual error. If you read carefully, you'll find that there are two references to Ayn Rand in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy. The one you referenced is in the preface, on page x, which briefly mentions that Rand's bio was rejected. The other is on page 762, where it calls Rand's philosophy "amateur". It's mentioned on the article talk page, and I even linked to a full copy of the relevant OCP article. The fact that you are unaware of this issue is deeply concerning.

As for resistance to this source, the usual argument is that it's "only" one source, as if we need more, or that it's insulting, as if that's relevant. However, I haven't seen anyone claim that the Oxford Companion to Philosophy is unreliable, and I wouldn't take them seriously. If anything, it is one of the very best sources available, given its high academic standing.

I'm sorry, but the facts here are entirely clear. I am not asking you to change what you did, or even apologize for it. I would prefer, however, that you recognize the errors you made and try to avoid making them in the future. I have to admit that you strike me as defensive and dismissive. I noticed, for example, that you didn't acknowledge that you went too far when you closed the RfC on the wrong basis. This is, as I said before, highly counterproductive. MilesMoney (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

MFD needing closure

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:How_to_draw_a_diagram_with_Microsoft_Word This has been open for over a month and I think the consensus is clear by now. Can someone close it already? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus seemed to be for archiving, which didn't require an admin, so I did it. equazcion� | 20:09, 8 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Mass creation of automated "Keychain" accounts from Apple

Over the last week or so, there has been a rash of automated account creation, with usernames generally beginning with "Keychaintest". If you look at Special:ListUsers starting with "Keychaintest", you will see close to 100 accounts by now. I've been blocking them, and User:Reaper Eternal has imposed a couple of rangeblocks, both covering IPs assigned to Apple Inc. Presumably, this has something to do with Keychain (Apple). Is there any way we can contact someone at Apple and ask them (1) what they're doing, and (2) if they would please stop? Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I misread your post and looked for users beginning with "Keychain", so I noticed Keychain1113 and Keychain1234 and saw that you'd blocked them; do you think they're related? Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those two are part of it, although most of them begin with "Keychaintest". NawlinWiki (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I looked at a couple of these accounts last week, and they were almost certainly not created by an Apple employee. However, they were created using a pre-release version of OS X, so perhaps it is a developer playing around with a new feature of OS X. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Now, taking a look at some of the newer accounts, I'm finding them all over the place, including 24 on one of Apple's ranges, so I am at a loss for what's going on. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

They've showed up on random IPs all over the world, albeit mostly on Apple's range. I rather doubt the professional software developers at Apple would use Wikipedia as a software testing platform to test their software features. I also looked at a couple and they don't have emails associated with the accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

We can easily block account creation using a name that begins with "keychain" with the edit filter. Anyone in favor?—Kww(talk) 21:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in a handful of checks, I have found and blocked a number of accounts that don't fit the pattern. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You'd typically use the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist for something like this. I'm shocked that NawlinWiki didn't simply (ab)use that. It's not as though he's unfamiliar with it. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

MZ - I made a polite request here for help with a problem. Does that justify your being snarky about it? NawlinWiki (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Over the span of years, you've taken an extremely heavy-handed approach all over the site in a futile cat-and-mouse game. Indefinite semiprotections, range blocks, and title blacklist entries that are affecting an untold number of legitimate and good-faith users, while doing almost nothing to stop whoever it is you're actually trying to deter.

I'm all about solving problems. What's the problem here? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't very nice. And it's not really relevant here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thinking on it, the Titleblacklist extension should probably be folded into the AbuseFilter extension. Hmm. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

DoRD: Can you please explain why you made these blocks? Was there active abuse or some other disruption to Wikipedia? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw a number of accounts, created in a short period of time, all technically indistinguishable, and which appeared to be related. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

NawlinWiki, same questions. I don't see any contributions from any of these accounts, but I haven't checked thoroughly. Surely there's a good reason you all have been blocking these accounts, I just don't see it at the moment. Clarity here would be great. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not other than there are over 100 of these accounts, and when I asked Reaper Eternal to check them, zhe said that they were the result of "very large amount of automated account creation". Just the fact of mass automated account creation seems disruptive to me. But if there is a consensus to the contrary, I will be glad to go back and unblock them all. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any appropriate purpose to hundreds of automatic account creations coming out of a range of corporate IPs.—Kww(talk) 22:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. I can't help but suspect that the sympathetic response to this conduct might have something to do with Apple having a generally very good reputation. If (say) an advertising company, a tourism promotion board or an arms manufacturer had been automatically creating accounts for no clear reason we'd probably be coming down on them like a ton of bricks - and rightly so. I can't see any sensible reason why Apple should be automatically creating accounts, and blocking them seems entirely reasonable. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know that we're aware (Killiondude reached out on Philippe's talk page). I'm on vacation for the day (and so logging on from the car, may be a bit slow to respond on wikI) but am going through everything and will try to reach out to Apple. I'll be looking around myself but if you have anything specific that you want me to see please feel free to email me (EmailUser or jalexander@wikimedia.org). Jalexander--WMF 23:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
• Apple Inc. happens to be my employer & I'm a developer there. Let me know if there's anything I can do. I can go through 'inside' channels and try figure out what's going on. People may not be aware that they're being disruptive and I don't think Apple would willfully do so - Alison ^❤ 23:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• According to my only moderatively disruptive search engine, "Apple is number two in the countdown of the top ten most disruptive technology vendors". It's not meant in that sense though. Well, probably... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Did anybody try to email one of these users? If there's a script creating accounts, it might be registering the owner's email address. I agree that it's silly to block accounts that aren't editing. What you want to do is contact the person and ask them nicely what they are doing, and point out the inconvenience they are causing us. Maybe they are testing some software that would be really useful. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Accounts that are being created disruptively and/or are in violation of policy should be blocked, the number of edits or lack therof is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you please elaborate? What is being disrupted? Which policy is being violated? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You can't email them since no email is associated with any account I spot-checked. And yes, WP:ILLEGIT seems to come into play here. Nobody needs dozens to hundreds of accounts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOCK, WP:NOTHERE, probably WP:U, and it's WP:DISRUPTive because it's wasting editors' time and the WMF's server space. I can't think of a good reason why these shouldn't be blocked other than vaguely-waved warm fuzzies. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the issue here is. What is (if there is one) the good reason we are blocking these accounts? Rjd0060 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any either if they have never edited, although I believe I have blocked a couple of them myself because that is what is/was being done. If nothing else, it has certainly served to bring it to everyone's notice and if it helps to identify a possible security issue in Wikipedia's registration system or Apple software development, so much the better. We need to get to the bottom of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

How about WP:NOTHERE? I see no reason that WMF's server time and database storage space should be used by someone doing some sort of testing on an ongoing basis if these accounts are not being made without any intention of improving the encyclopedia. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• These accounts are still being created. I'm looking at 15 unblocked accounts that were created from networks that don't appear to be associated with Apple Inc., and from the name of the one account I did block, I am even more doubtful that this is anything officially Apple. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
• Apple's trademark describes Keychain as "Computer software, namely, software for providing security and verifying authentication which allows users to gain secure access to multiple network and desktop applications."[9] Perhaps someone with knowledge of the Apple Keychain project got the idea to use Wikipedia[10] to test Keychain in some way. Has any of the users of the blocked accounts challenged/commented on their block? -- Jreferee (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a word from any of them. The last range that DoRD blocked was in China, which is a frequent source of spambots. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Please note that I have not made any rangeblocks in relation to these accounts - that block was due to an unrelated sockpuppetry case. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like your initial instincts were correct. Since none of the users of the blocked accounts challenged/commented on their block, it doesn't appear that you prevented them from doing something in Wikipedia that they wanted to do. I doubt that Apple Inc. would want a news item to associate Apple with the mass creation of Keychain accounts in Wikipedia. As of this post, it looks like there were more than 100 Keychain accounts created in October 2013 and none of them have posts on their talk page (Go to here and control-F find "October 2013"). Of the 100+, User:Keychaintest1000, User:Keychaintest55 (created 9 Oct 2013) and User:Keychaintest mj13, User:Keychaintest987 (created 10 Oct 2013) are not blocked as of this post. User:Keychaintest99, created 1 October 2013 at 18:48, appears to have been the first user account created in the October 2013 Keychain username series. I suggest unblocking User:Keychaintest99. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update. Apple are actively looking into this right now. I'll let you know as soon as I have more information but right now, folks there aren't aware of anything that could be causing this - Alison ^❤ 21:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC) (speaking in my personal capacity here)

Trying to add to Wikipedia for the first time

I am trying to add to Wikipedia for the first time. I added the below and hope it will be approved. Thank you

Website--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.222.157 (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to make such additions. You would need to find an article to which this information was relevant, and add it there. Note that ref tags are used to add footnotes, usually for the purpose of citing sources. So you don't add a ref tag unless there is something in an article which the ref would support. DES ^(talk) 15:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to experiment with editing, why not try WP:SANDBOX? GiantSnowman 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi all,

At present, the dispute resolution noticeboard is suffering a large backlog, and requires the assistance of willing editors to help clear it. If dispute resolution is something you haven't done before, it's not that difficult, and other volunteers (like myself) are willing to help you out. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, Steven Zhang (talk) 22:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Need more eyes on this article - POV issues

I have watchlisted this inexperienced user for a while. I corrected some of his more egregious issues but now he has created a new article, full of POV issues religious proselytism. As I do not want to sound callous and be the only one after this, I would appreciate some more eyes on user User talk:Nannadeem and especially his new article: Naqvi Orientation. I have added some tags and I'm inclined to PROD it, but as I said I do not want to sound like I am chasing after him or be accused of heavily using the mop. After all he is inexperienced. Another set of eyes and opinions are sought. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I have PRODed the article, I can see no plausible way it is or can become encyclopedic or tolerable here. I duly notified User:Nannadeem of this. But that user has since edited the article several times without removing the PROD template. Can it be that he or she simply doesn't understand what the PROD means? DES ^(talk) 04:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A complete rewrite is not really a deletion option, but the user does happen to have gone and done the usual WP:PBUH issues suggesting that aside from being very new, this editor is of the Muslim religion and may happen to have some COI issue.[11] This editor's edit summary states "added names of sons of Imam Al Naqi and truthfulness in respect of Jafar-al-Zaki whose respect is disgraced by denoting him Al-Tawab (Tawab). This is not only sin and causing damage to my sentiments being one of the descendants of Naqvis"[12] declaring that he is a "descendants of Naqvis". The editor may mean well, but needs to be instructed about Wikipedia and its policies. The subject is also very personal so care should be taken to not offend him. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have Naqvis, " who are direct descendants of the prophet Muhammad through the lineage of the Imam Ali al-Naqi." This new article says "Naqvi or Naqavi is a community composed of the direct descendants of the 10th Imam of Ithna Asharis (Ali-Al-Naqi/Al-Hadi)." Nannadeem has been editing Naqvis (where most of his edits have been reverted). Any reason why this new article shouldn't be turned into redirect? Ah, yes there is - it's an unlikely search term. So it may have to go to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help people. I think it may end in AfD too. I wanted to recuse myself due to a) my involvement with this user beforehand, as I mentioned, and b) I may be biased in an overly religious proselytizing article so I thought it better to let the community get involved instead. I am still watchlisting to see where it goes and to revert any obvious POV or other issue like WP:PBUH. -- Alexf^(talk) 11:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Help!? :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ammend for Interaction Ban (again)

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

---

It is shown quite clear here, the discussion is becoming much more confrontational. despite what ChrisGualtieri believes about me "wanting" to "argue", i'm an involved member in this discussion and its nearly impossible for me to respond, he made himself involved to the discussion. And i know how AFD works well enough if this goes on it would either be kept for "no consensus" or be "kept" until i have to respond to the same argument all over again. I'm trying my hardest NOT to confront this editor but still make a point in the AfD. but its being difficult if he's allowed to.Lucia Black (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see much point in a topic ban and interaction ban if every time the subject of the bans wants to break them she is issued with permission to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - the point still stands, i brought up a discussion, i should be able to discuss freely. ChrisGualtieri has already been advised to avoid topics that i've started. This isn't about me trying to break the rules. We shouldn't be voting oppose for the sake of principle of a ban.Lucia Black (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia Black, I think the diff you posted above is incorrect. Do you mean as "shown quite clear" here, where, citing "violating interaction ban", ChrisGualtieri removed your AfD post that replied to ChrisGualtieri's post? Would you mind providing a link to the interaction ban. Also, please provide a link to where ChrisGualtieri has been advised to avoid topics that Lucia Black has started. If there are other diffs that put limits on Lucia Black-ChrisGualtieri interaction, please post those as well. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia had just had her topic/interaction ban ammended for the mediation in the thread above.Here. And was reminded about her sanctions. Sanctions here:[13]. Of the three AN requests to remove/alter her sanctions only this one is relevant.[14] While I am not interaction banned and am allowed to reply, I am following exactly what I said to UltraExactZZ: "I'll refrain from edits relating to the Square Enix project after this AFD, okay? I'd like to remain free to edit other video game articles during this time, considering the related GANs (like my re-nom of Persona 4) and subject matter around visual novels. Would that be acceptable?" This is the same AFD and the work is nearly GA level after my extensive work to save this article; Lucia who is dead-set on its removal by deletion or merging argues with every Keep and insults Masem while misinterpreting GNG criteria. I removed her post and did not report her, her vindicitive claim I find enjoyment in it says alot. Despite repeated warnings and a block for violating the topic and interaction ban, Lucia has learned nothing. Someone should close the AFD so I can do some final work and get it to GAN, as AFD is a quick-fail of stability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• comment this thread is about Lucia/ChrisG. ChrisG shouldn't be using it to demand that the AfD be closed the way he wants it so that he could "do some final work and get it to GAN" per WP:CANVASS. Such requests must be neutrally worded and made at the appropriate forum, which is Wikipedia:AN/RFC. I strongly encourage ChrisG to withdraw that part of his above comment.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose this pointy proposal, support block for Lucia. Again, we have another interaction ban violation by Lucia. Again, she is filing a frivolous complaint at AN. This is precisely why I personally rejected any amendments to her topic ban; because if Chris is involved, she becomes an incredibly disruptive presence. Chris has been advised to avoid you; however, he is not subject to an interaction ban (unlike you), and this is related to a pretty major topic; not some obscure 1980s game. Lucia is becoming an enormous drain on the project, and we really need to stop her skirting around the fringes of her IBAN and TBAN and getting away scot-free; in fact, there have been blatant cases that have simply been ignored. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making a pointy proposal. and you admitted this is "personal". And again, it has been proven recently, i am not solely responsible for the disruption ChrisGualtieri brings on himself. But regardless, i have provided proof in the past, in which Lukeno94 clearly tried to sweep it under the rug. If i had the link, i can show everyone here how much he tried to cover up when i had provided proof. Not only that but he's the proposer for the ban. SO its more of a proposition bias.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I closed the last request to amend the interaction ban. We have a tricky situation here, where Chris responded to Lucia's post and called her out by name. I know Chris doesn't have an interaction ban, but Chris should nonetheless avoid baiting Lucia into situations where he responds to her and she cannot respond. I'd suggest Chris impose a self-non-interaction ban until November when this thing finishes, and just, literally, ignore every post of hers, don't respond, don't respond to the points within, let other editors do so. Lucia, this thread has gone on long enough, so I'd suggest you stop posting - remember you are under an interaction ban so continually mentioning and arguing with Chris is in violation thereof.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

if i request it to be amended, that shouldn't constitute as violation to the ban, even if it is rejected. It says so in WP:BAN that is the exception.Lucia Black (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• As anyone who's ever had a sibling can tell you, one-way interaction bans are just asking for trouble. --erachima talk 23:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Business and management research

I have only limited time now, so perhaps someone else can take a look and see if anything dubious is going on. The brand new article Business and management research is being edited by 5 brand-new accounts and one that edits only every five years or so, all using VisualEditor to boot. This may be some kind of school assignment or something more nefarious, I don't know, but it certainly is highly unusual. Fram (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

One editor left this message on User:Deb's talk page: "we are trying to write a page about Business and Management research based on the book 'Research methods for business students'. And we did not find any page about this subject. We have searched : management and business research, research in business, research management. We didn't find anything. Could we have just half an hour to improve the page ? Following wikipedia standard." Seems to answer the why, but raises other questions. Rgrds. --64.85.216.130 (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that they have ignored my previous advice. I've sent them all a message now. Deb (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am quite active in deleting PRODs; in my work there I have come across a number of 'essay' style articles, all relating to business management and PR, created by a number of different editors (many with Indian user names) - do we have a rogue class on our hands? GiantSnowman 08:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

We've certainly had them in the past. It's hard to know what age group these are and whether anyone's in charge or whether an ill-informed teacher has just told them to "write an article for wikipedia". Deb (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll try and get a list of editors together if/when I have time; otherwise feel free to go through and check my 'delete' log, the articles on business/PR are quite easy to spot. GiantSnowman 10:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. Fram (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

interwiki fa links being mass removed

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

---

Hi,

Not sure where to take this so I'll post here - User:Yamaha5 is currently mass removing fa.wikipedia.org interwiki links from a great many articles. I've posted on the user's page but no response as yet. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I remove them because they have confilict and most of them have interwiki in wikidataYamaha5 (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

7 edits/minute if my fuzzy math is correct. This really does need intervention, unless someone sees a valid reason remove fa.wiki links en masse. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

for example I removed this if you check fa:دهستان عظیمیه it has other page in enwiki (Azimiyeh Rural District)!

@Tarc: I am not new user you can check my activity (fa:user:reza1615)! so I know what I do Yamaha5 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

did you check my contributions? can I continue?

I am not a new user I was an admin in fa.wiki and wikidata (Reza1615). Now I am solving Interwiki conflicts Yamaha5 (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking at this yesterday and saw several Farsi WP links that were incorrect (i.e., the Farsi link for the English article "Smith" would be the Farsi article "Jones". I think this is a bona fide problem that Yamaha5 is fixing. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I am working on it fundamentally ! At the first with d:User:Yamaha5/ConflictBot I collect a list for Farsi after that for other langs. in these lists me and some of my friends remove incorrect old interwikis from en.wiki. Yamaha5 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, this all seems above board in that case - if this is sorting out a problem. I was just uncomfortable seeing Farsi mass removed with no apparent explanation. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Close needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right

The RFC on whether to add a template editor user right comes to a close today and will need to be assessed by an uninvolved administrator. Thanks to whoever chooses to take it on. equazcion� 16:46, 10 Oct 2013 (UTC)

Non-guideline page being edit-warred to be marked as guideline.

WP:MOSAM - which has never received any sort of community approval process - keeps being editwarred to be marked as a guideline. It's a poorly-written mess, and well below the standards of any real guideline. It has never had any sort of community approval process, it was just marked as a guideline, while existing so far out there from normal editing that no-one noticed for a while. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I kind of agree with you, but, I strongly advise you to drop the issue. There appears to be a consensus at VPP that this isn't a problem and it's been de facto accepted as a guideline due to it's unchallenged use. Right or wrong, your concern has not gained community support.--v/r - TP 22:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been marked a guideline for half a decade, and it's regularly enforced, so it is a guideline. A less-than-professionally written guideline, certainly, but even our most globally relevant and accepted policies started in similar states. More to the point though, Adam, since you've rejected and ignored many invitations to collaborate in improving it —even refusing to explain what you wish it said in the part you dispute— in favor of policy-violating forum shopping, canvassing, and edit warring, there is no reason to take any complaint you make about it seriously any longer. --erachima talk 23:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this *is* a guideline, by silent consensus, and through the actions of editors enforcing that written in the guidelines across various pages. Promotion to a guideline simply requires consensus, and if nobody complained or was able to remove the guideline tag in all of these years, that suggests the bulk consensus is it is a guideline - we're not a bureaucracy and we don't always have to follow proper procedures. I'd suggest you (a) identify clearly the problems with it and work on a consensus basis to improve and (b) or if you think it is unfixable or in need of a massive rewrite that will take months, start an RFC that is broadly advertised to have it downgraded from guideline status.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be WP:EDITCONSENSUS, to drop the proper bit of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The only people who were calling for it to be a guideline at VPP are the members of the Wikiproject. Literally all non-membersd thought it was questionable. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Being a member of a wikiproject doesn't make their views any less valid. You seem to really want this downgraded, and a broadly advertised RFC is the best way to make that happen. Consensus can change, and maybe now there is consensus that it is not a good one. I'd suggest rather focusing on fixing it until it's at a state you and other opponents can accept as guideline-ready. The tag at the top of the page is not the most important thing here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Close - per close at VPP (to allow discussion to be in one place or to be posted to a forum where such guideline decisions can be made). However, here's my two cents. Guidelines require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline (not just WikiProjects). See WP:PROPOSAL. There does not seem to be too much participation in developing that page.[15] Only one editor with more than twenty edits to the page and none of the editors with more than ten edits are an admin. There are a lot of What links here linkes, but it's hard to say what that means (e.g., whether the page has been used/enforced as a guideline for years or something else). If the page sat at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles for years with a guideline tag, then WP:EDITCONSENSUS would seem to apply. When was the page first listed at Manual of Style? Why the opposition to this page being a guideline (do other MoS guidelines already sufficiently cover the issues in the page)? Given the lack of users who have significant edits to the page,[16] I tend to think that following WP:PROPOSAL with a request to make Anime- and manga-related articles a guideline may be needed to establish a high level of consensus from the entire community needed to create a guideline. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)