Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 67 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 44 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 43 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)[reply]

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

(Initiated 43 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)[reply]

Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 40 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders

(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	12	12	24
TfD	0	3	3
MfD	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	9	35	44
AfD	0	0	0

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

(Initiated 60 days ago on 22 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Bibliomaniac15. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 59 days ago on 23 March 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Pppery. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 27 days ago on 24 April 2024) House Blaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 15 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects#Add Wikifunctions or not?

(Initiated 275 days ago on 20 August 2023) Could an uninvolved admin please determine whether there is a consensus to add Wikifunctions to the Main Page? Thanks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 118 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done Charcoal feather (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 112 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)[reply]

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

(Initiated 98 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)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 35 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 23 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)[reply]

Doing... Goldenarrow9 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Chidgk1: I have added my closing remarks at the talk page and archived the discussion. Hope it seems fair to everyone. Goldenarrow9 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1#Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

(Initiated 20 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 19 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 12 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024#New article

(Initiated 10 days ago on 11 May 2024) Split proposal for a new article surrounding an issue under arbitration sanctions - the conflict in the Middle East. Any involved editor closing it will be seen as taking sides, as such an uninvolved third-party admin is needed to close the requested split to prevent tensions on the talk page rising. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

I request a review of the closes at Media Viewer RfC Question 1 and Media Viewer RfC Question 2 to determine whether the closers interpreted consensus incorrectly. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background

A previous on this same RfC resulted in virtually unanimous Overturn. Then Edokter preformed a half-close on just part 2 (which I find faulty in itself) and which created this mess of two half-closes on a single RfC. Cenarium then preformed the remaining half-close on part 1.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC June_2014_RfC which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. Consensus can change, however there has been no redebate of that question for good reason. Supporters do not waste time initiating redebate in order to not-change standing consensus, and Opposers do not waste time initiating redebate when they know that the result is going to go against them. June_2014_RfC is a standing consensus result. No action had been taken on that outcome due to Superprotect. When Superprotect was withdrawn, there was a raging debate in the community whether any admin would, or should, simply step up to implement June_2014_RfC as a standing consensus-action. Many people were arguing respect for consensus itself, arguing that RfC result be implemented as a simple consensus-action. Others argued against it. The first part of this RfC was established as a place for the community to engage in that debate. The question was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC". This question was an exact reflection of the debate I saw in the community. Part of the reason for the RfC was to inhibit any supporter from taking action, as a formal debate was underway to carefully decide how to proceed. If the first part of the did RfC pass, the second part asked if the community wanted include terms that we should try to work with the WMF before taking action. The second part would issue a Formal Community-Consensus request that MWF do it for us. The second part explicitly proposed a ban on community-action-to-implement for the duration.Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2 close review

I attempted discussion with the closer Edokter on his talk page. He was entirely non-responsive there. He did briefly comment here on Administrator's Noticeboard, but he immediately went non-responsive. I was literally in the middle of posting a formal Close Review request on his half-close when I saw that part 1 got closed. I informed him of my intent to challenge his close, but that I was holding that action to investigate the new part 1 situation.

edit This closer wrote a Wikipedia Signpost article promoting Media Viewer. He also posted on the talk page of the original RfC. He was against it, and gave his strong views that it would not be implemented.[1] He called this RfC "poison", and stated that he feared admonishment if he closed it the way he wanted.[2] I can see no good-faith reason for him to preform an improper half-close on part 2 of this RfC, when a closer going his way could have simply written "No effect" for part 2. He took the option of working with the WMF off the table, and cornered a part-1 closer into either disregarding the majority or issuing a close to immediately implement without notice to the WMF.

Part 2 had 6 bullet points, and overall ended with tiny majority support. The closer properly closed as no-consensus on bullet point 6 (I botched #6 during drafting, it was only supposed to note the expiration of the 7-day hold). However there were several Support-all-but-#6 votes in the Oppose section, as well as Oppose-only-#6 votes. That establishes solid support for 1-through-5, and the closer essentially notes that they are worthy of proper consideration for consensus. A closer needs to offer a good explanation if he does not follow the majority. He gave the astounding explanation that he simply didn't want to bother!?! More specifically his explanation was "There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se". That a poor rationale for denying #2 (saying the results should be delivered to the WMF), that is wrong on #3 #4 #5 (issuing a Formal Community Consensus request to the WMF), that is a HUGE error on #1 (imposing a temporary ban on community action to implement). Note that he deliberately declined to close the first part of the RfC. Had the first part passed (and it still could under review), Edokter's failure to issue consensus on #1 could have resulted in someone acting on media viewer as a consensus action, without notice to the WMF, when there was a consensus to prohibit such action. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss part 2 close review

Alsee, where during the progress of the RFC did you mention that you had "botched #6 during drafting" or seek to withdraw or amend it? If I had seen you do so, I could have raised objections to the remainder. As it was, for the sake of brevity, I only discussed the greatest failing in the proposal. If you think that was an "Oppose-only-#6 vote", you are in error. NebY (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NebY, You have raised an excellent point. I explicitly did so in this diff.[3]

Note to Closer and everyone. Many of the Opposes on Q2 are clearly Opposed to an "implement" result on Q1, rather than opposed to adding a 7-day hold on the implement from Q1. If it helps firm up a consensus-close, the final bullet point from Q2 could be implicitly or explicitly dropped. The close could say something to the effect of "Consensus to reaffirm and, after a 7 day hold, to implement RfC:Media_Viewer/June_2014". Alsee (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added bolding to the key section. The closer explicitly considered my proposal to drop the poorly-drafted final bullet point. He offered an absurd explanation for rejecting it. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also contacted him on his talk page after the close, again requesting As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2.[4] Notice that the closer never even responded on his talk page, not until after I notified him on my intent to file a close review request due to his active non-responsiveness. At that point he did respond, telling me to stop "badgering" him.[5] The closer was actively hostile, and actively ignored discussion. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I had also added more info in the Part 2 close review section. Look for the blue (edit) showing the addition. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alsee the diff you provided - thank you - is not from the RfC discussion and was not addressed to those who participated in it, nor does it mention or even hint that you "botched" the RfC or considered it "poorly drafted". It appears that you only considered dropping point #6 when you saw the close and thought the RfC might have passed without it, and that even then you did not think it had been a mistake to include #6; after all, it was precisely that firm action that the entire two-part RfC was designed to produce. You thought to speak loudly and wield a big stick, but the stick is broken and it's time to accept that you did not find the great chorus of support you expected. NebY (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few observations :

the close of part 1 as written would make the close of part 2 moot
the close of part 1 is not bound by the close of part 2 since no consensus was found in part 2
the text about media viewer in the technology report was a quote of a WMF announcement
looks to me like a lot of those things are overblown.

Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, if the part 2 is reversed and part 1 isn't, I endorse the part 2 falling to you to resolve. It never should have been split between two different closers. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should not have split the RfC into two questions. Frankly, the entire language with which you crafted the RfC looks like it was designed to force a consensus your way, with nested and circular conditions, dependancies and legalese throughout. Any commenter (and closer) had to read the questions very carefully in order to understand the implications his/her comment would have. I closed #2 as is because you did not ammend or change it, and I considered all the comments, which clearly showed lack of consensus for implementing all point in #2 as a whole, because that is what all commenters were responding to. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn close. I did think that it should have been at most a "Weak overturn close" (perhaps not justifying the effort to write that down), but looking at facts did make me change my mind. It appears that, before closing (Special:Diff/636641653), the closer has written: "This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it." (Special:Diff/636454901). Not only that calls the impartiality of the closer into question (that wouldn't be that bad), it makes the close rather inconsistent. If RFC was against policy, it should have been closed as "Consensus doesn't matter" or something. Otherwise the reasoning that it is against policy should have been rejected. There is no third possibility.

The reasoning given in the close is also suspect. First it says "Such an implementation would not be possible anyway, as policy provides no foundation for the community to "direct" administrators to perform certain actions, especially those requiring the use of admin privileges.". That is wrong - any deletion discussion closed as "Delete" is a counterexample.

"Even if a 'willing' admin would be prepared to do so, others will be opposed." - that is simply irrelevant. The closer has to decide if consensus exists, not to predict the future. If consensus will not be implemented, then it simply will not be implemented. It will not mean that it did not exist.

"Having said that, There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se. Anyone is free to adress and appeal to the foundation and request a configuration change using a bug report, or do so collectively depending on the outcome question one." - such reasoning would invalidate most content RFCs. After all, everyone can edit articles.

Also, the closer acknowledges that "Most opposition is against the deadline and method given in the first and last terms.". Some opposers have explicitly said that they support everything without 6th point (for example, opposers nr. 2, 4, 5, perhaps 8).

And one more thing: one should note that opposers nr. 3, 15, 17 oppose to this proposal, because it is not harsh enough. That would bring the headcount from +19 -18 =7 (19:18 is about 51%) to +22 -15 =7 (22:15 is about 60%). And if one is not going to accept the argument that this RFC is just against policy, consistency would demand that oppose nr. 11 (and parts of some others) would be discounted. Thus, in fact, the numerical result is not as close, as the numbers of votes in "Support" and "Oppose" sections would suggest...

In conclusion, I think that the presented arguments demonstrate that the close was not very good and should be overturned... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1 close review

RfC Question 1 ended 75 Support 36 Oppose. More than 2 to 1 support.

I attempted discussion with the closer Cenarium on his talk page. I was the third person to show up objecting to his close. We had extended discussions, but I ended them when it was clear that further discussion of abnormalities in his analysis would be fruitless.

The point where I gave up re-explaining my original concern was just after he explained which votes he struck for cause, and his cause for doing so. The closer stated that he struck "As per other-person" votes as somehow invalid. That is not merely abnormal, that horrifying. People use "As per" as a quick way to effectively copy-paste the arguments listed by someone else. The fact that two people present the same valid argument for their position is certainly not valid cause to strike the second person from participation, and strike them from contributing to consensus. I most dearly hope the closer has not been doing that in his other closes.

The original and main abnormality that I was trying to discuss with this closer was the exact same problem in the original overturned close. I'll just quote my challenge to the original close, with one small strike:

The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, ~~the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change.~~ Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

The only difference between this time and last time, is that this time the closer himself points out the problem this creates. The central theme of the closer's explanation, one which he repeats and stresses, is that this RfC did not contain the sort of discussion and debate needed for a closer to directly analyze and issue a consensus on the media viewer setting. And after noting that he can't evaluate and issue a new consensus on that, he proceeds to do so anyway. After changing the question, and finding no debate on the changed question, the closer is cut free from the debate that did happen and wanders off with his views on the issue that wasn't debated. The closer is using the absence of debate on a not-debated-question in order to incorrectly issue a no-consensus on the not-debated-question. Example:

Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't even mention media viewer, exactly because media viewer isn't being debated. He's presenting an argument that any standing consensus should be implemented. It is perverse for the closer to use his deliberate silence on an issue not-being-debated as justification to issue a no-consensus on the issue not being debated.

It is especially troubling when the closer is trying to claim that his off-target against-the-numbers no-consensus result has the effect of reversing the outcome of a previously an established 93% consensus. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss part 1 close review

Speedy keep. Can we please be done with all this? The issue's been going on since early in the Northern Hemisphere summer, and reviews of reviews of are a bit much. I haven't looked at Alsee's position and have no idea whether the close is in line with my views on the MediaViewer issue; my opinion here is simply that this is comparable to continued AFDs of an article, problematic simply because the continued discussions get in the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen much of a problem with a string of counter-consensus closes with AFDs, though, and it's fairly clear that this RFC is being closed against consensus based on a "let's not rock the boat" philosophy.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend if you want to compare this to a second AFD, the comparison is to an AFD that SUCCEEDED and someone else came a long and recreated the article. If the first AFD was valid then there's a good chance the second one is as well. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was again closed by some ~~spineless lackey of~~ guy with overeager kowtowing to the WMF, that desperately want this extreme anti-community behaviour of the WMF hidden as far from public as possible. The consensus was clear, the first RfC was to be affirmed. There's not a single reason besides "The WMF will not listen to the community in any event, so why bother?" If we kowtow to those guys'n'gals in San Francisco all the time, we can just give up pretending that this project is a community project at all. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to be more civil, but it's very hard to be civil with people, who demonstrate extreme uncivilness like the closers of this RFCs with clear consensus absolutely opposite to what's proclaimed by them. Consensus is clear, was clear, and it's as well clear that the WMF is on an extreme hostile path against the communities and doesn't want to be bothered with community input. The main (and perhaps only) reason for MV was: It was the first major project of that team in SF, so it had to be implemented come what may. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of mediaviewer. Get rid of it. I don't really care what all of this is, but what I do know, is the consensus in the original RFC was established, the consensus in the RFC to affirm that RFC was 2-1, and this RFC is obviously to implement mediaviewer. Let's get rid of it! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was preparing to close this (needed a few hours free in a row) and was glad to see someone else did. I was planning on closing with "Tell WMF that the community would like this to be opt-in" as it isn't clear at all the community has the authority to do that itself. But I'd not finished thinking about it. Not a satisfying close, but a reasonable one. I don't _think_ I ever participated in this discussion (I don't recall being involved ever, but apparently I was because I got notified about this) and I honestly don't care about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit I notified you because you commented on the first close review. The fact that you *didn't* participate in the RfC itself makes your evaluation particularly valuable. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs sometimes end up going a way their proposer doesn't like. This is a thing that happens, because it's rare that everyone commenting in an RfC thinks in lockstep with the individual who started it. I can understand Alsee being annoyed that he put a lot of effort into these RfCs and didn't get the results he wanted, but again...that's a thing that happens. We don't reverse RfC closes because we don't like them or because we would have closed differently; we would only reverse them if there is obvious error or malfeasance (and in a case of malfeasance, it's likely to be Arbcom's remit more than AN's). Barring those things, there's nothing stopping you from waiting a month or two and opening a new RfC, if you're convinced it would go differently next time; that's far more likely to get you results than demanding constant re-litigation of closes already done.
Specific to this case: Both closes appear adequately-reasoned to me; while there is room for disagreement on whether either of them was an ideal close, or whether they weighted points the way I or Alsee might weight them, there's nothing obviously defective that jumps out from either of them. Cenarium, especially, provided extensive explanation of how his decision was reached and, again, while you or I might close it differently, his explanation provides sufficient support for his close. Edokter's close also appears reasonable; the proposal was for items 1-6, and the voters reached no consensus to implement steps 1-6. An adapted proposal striking step 6 could have been put forward and the voting re-started, but it wasn't, and it wouldn't make sense to close based on "some people thought they were voting on this thing, but some other people decided to vote on this other thing that wasn't proposed, so everyone was voting on something different, but I'm going to pick one that only some people voted on and act like everyone was voting on that." That's a common problem that arises in RfC-type discussions, and it nearly always leads to exactly this: a split vote and no consensus. The usual response is to sit back, regroup, and next time, try to craft a proposal that addresses the issues that split the last one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)The OP should 'WP:drop the stick- multiple closers have closed against your prefered outcome - so drop the stick, and live with it, as policy counsels, and as we must all do from time to time. Endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the OP again demonstrates a misunderstanding of wp:consensus and WP:NOVOTE - "per" votes don't add any more reasoning, and votes do not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a severe problem when we have something complex for admin closure, by definition the more hasty closers are likely to be those that close, where as the more thoughtful and painstaking closers will be left behind. This is not to say that these closes are necessarily incorrect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC).

Cenarium has pointed out that he spent a considerable time (30 hours?) on this close. Let me make it clear that I was not finding fault, simply raising what seemed to me to be a deeper issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the clarification, although I should note that most of it were reading (and a bit of testing) since I was inactive during the events and wanted to get up to date for other reasons as well. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, especially Cenarium's detailed and well-written close (which is what Alsee demanded last time, BTW), and {{trout}} Alsee for admin-shopping. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oiyarbepsy, please do not misrepresent "what I demanded last time". I literally quoted what I wanted last time. This closer exactly repeated the error, and I'm asking for the exact same thing I asked for last time. I'm asking for a close that accurately reflects the debate. I'm asking for a close analyzes and issues some sort of result on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and some sort of result on "Implement June_2014_RfC". Alsee (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. Whatever is being asked here is unclear ('counter', 'overturn', wah…). This likely indicates things have gotten bogged down somewhere. If whatever needs asking again, then please try to phrase the question simply, clearly and accessible to all (eg. Should Media Viewer (a new way to view pictures) be enabled by default on the English Wikipedia?). If the problem is instead bureaucratic/sysadmin/WMF/etc objection then, I presume the techniques used by German Wikipedia can be used. And yes, things may change over-time and one needs to reassess after a suitable break—for instance, I've stuck with Media Viewer since it's release; I only (selfishly) disabled the Media Viewer last weekend when I had some image work to do and tested whether it would be more efficient to disable the viewer in the short-term. So, chill-out, step-back, contemplate the higher-level overview from a distance, it may be that the process (whatever the previous/latest outcome) is snagged on something else. Likely all that is required is a small UI tweak to make it "good enough" for most people, if that's the case lets focus the energy there and contribute civilly, cooperatively and positively. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close It's pretty clear the admin went against consensus , but yet insisted that consensus supported his close, which it didn't. Overturn. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close on both. Part 2 gave no rationale for going against the majority, and part 1 shouldn't have tried to issue a close on an issue that wasn't being debated. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alsee, you already stated your vote - you should indent your comment and label it Comment so it does not look like you are stacking (if you do so, you can delete this comment, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to the close review request itself? Alsee (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closer response I closed the first part of the RFC, while Edokter closed the second part earlier. It seems that Alsee is hell bent on making the point that the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status bears no relation to the question of which media viewer default status we should use now. As if it were a purely formal issue on the relevance of the July RFC, as if the situation had not changed since then, as if the current community's stance on media viewer is irrelevant. This is a deeply flawed notion, rejected by the voters in this RFC. For reasons independent of the community's will, the consensus in the July RFC could not be implemented at the time. The situation has significantly evolved since then, to argue on a purely wikilegal basis, without taking into consideration any of those developments, without any more regard for the underlying issue, is a pointless endeavor that has been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the vast majority of commentators. Alsee did in fact acknowledge that we should reinterpret the question in light of the present situation (notably, the consultation and the improvements made to media viewer), I quote "The RfC clearly asks people to review that outcome [of the consultation], and people can intelligently respond based upon that outcome.". Yet, now, probably because the consensus to disable media viewer by default has dwindled enough that it's difficult to make a case for it, Alsee backtracked from this assertion, saying that people didn't actually agree with it, I quote "I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.". This is clearly false, the vast majority of commentators expressed their view on the underlying issue, i.e. which media viewer default status we should use now, which for Alsee is a (I quote) "utterly trivial issue". It is a fact that the narrow question of reaffirming the previous RFC was debated by only a minority of commentators (half a dozen, the few votes that Alsee selectively quotes), the large majority of commentators actually commented on media viewer, Alsee himself did. The obvious truth is that, contrary to Alsee's claim, in order to answer the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status, we need to answer the question of which media viewer default status we should use now.

The community has consistently rejected the kind of pseudo-legal argument that would bind us to a decision on an issue without actually examining the issue at hand, and that's exactly what voters did here, they commented on the substance, and expected the outcome to be determined on the substance, disproving the wikilegalistic theory that is being promoted by Alsee now in order to sidetrack the real debate which didn't show the results he expected. More than 90% of votes with a rationale commented on media viewer itself, so for Alsee all of those are irrelevant and should be discounted. Whether he wants it or not, for voters, this RFC was on the media viewer default status, the comments show this, there's just no way of wikilawerying that fact away, and there was no consensus to disable it by default for either registered or unregistered users, so there was no consensus for implementing the previous RFC because it was the determining factor. Independently, there was no consensus for reaffirming the previous RFC, due to the lack of comments on this specific issue and the fact almost all voters implicitly or explicitly tied this question to the former. It isn't the closer's fault that the voters commented on an issue that was not exactly the issue that was being asked to be debated by the initiator, or only a subset, it is the initiator's fault for not having understood that the community is, by tradition, more concerned with the substance than the form. It was proper to close on the media viewer default status, since it is overwhelmingly the subject being debated in the RFC and it was necessary in order to answer the question being asked. Now, concerning my 'horrifying' discount of 'per votes', I mentioned those as not contributing to my analysis of arguments, which is kind of obvious since they don't bring any new argument to the table, they were considered when weighing arguments though. I do not believe that Alsee will ever be satisfied with a result that doesn't give him what he wants: as we have seen, he has wikilawyered to such an extent as to contradict his own previous statements, he accused the other closers of bad faith, his opponents in the RFC of bad faith... Yet, many, if not most, of those people were likewise flabbergasted by the WMF's actions, and voting oppose in this RFC, or failing to reach consensus on implementing the previous RFC, is in no way an endorsement of those actions, as I've made clear in my closing statement there is consensus that the WMF acted rashly and with disregard to the community. With regard to the future, I've actively invited the WMF to publish feedback on the latest media viewer version and address the main issues people have. If in a few months there are still concerns, a new RFC properly reviewing the situation (not just a vote) can be held.

TLDR : To determine consensus on the question being asked, it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, and the lack of consensus on the later implied the lack of consensus on the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said people commenting on Media Viewer were "irrelevant and should be discounted", I explicitly stated they should be included! People were debatating whether it would be wise to follow through with consensus, given the MWF's (temporary) blocking of that consensus. Comments on media viewer itself are legitimate reasonable contributing arguments in that debate. In answering that question many participants deliberately did not comment on Media Viewer itself, they saw no need to. Participants who did comment on Media Viewer often only offered a superficial comment on Media Viewer (which your close stresses repeatedly). You cannot ignore what was being debated, and you cannot use the legitimate absence of debate-on-another-question (which you stress) as an excuse to ignore what people DID debate and issue a no-consensus on an issue participants weren't debating. Anyone who thought consensus might have changed could simply Oppose. The result was more-than-2-to-1 Support for following through on an established consensus. It is perverse to issue a "no consensus" the not-debated question and claim that is has the effect exactly opposite of the original established consensus and exactly opposite to the clear consensus here. I'm simply asking for what I asked for after the first overturned close - an examination and close on "Reaffirming and implementing an established consensus". Only 31% 32% called that consensus into question, or opposed following through on it. Alsee (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I did answer this question, in my closing statement, I first mentioned that you had acknowledged the importance of the new developments, and later, I pointed out that the consensus was no longer standing, as you just recognized yourself. If my closing statement was mostly focused on media viewer, it is because it was, by far, the most important, and certainly the determining factor in whether the July RFC should be reaffirmed and implemented. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the RfC preamble I ensured that participants could take into account both the Superprotect matter and the Consultation matter. If any participants had concerns that the original Consensus was somehow "no longer standing" that is obviously good reason to Oppose Reaffirm and Oppose Implement. At most 32% had the view that the original result might no longer be an accurate reflection of consensus. And as Supporters noted, anyone with a good-faith-belief that consensus actually had changed should run an RfC seeking to establish a new consensus. That's how consensus works, that's how consensus has always worked. People who agree with an established consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus, and people who don't like a consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus when their true belief is that consensus hasn't changed.

In an AFD where the article-writer promises improvements, it is a routine matter for people to consider the promised improvements and to vote Delete because the improvements wouldn't matter. Are you suggesting that you would close any AFD as no-consensus simply because the article-author promised improvements, and the Oppose-delete-minority said they wanted to see how the improvements turned out? Alsee (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close Yes, I'm probably not the most neutral party here, however this close was what I was getting at originally. This fiasco has gone on far too long; multiple closures reaching the same conclusion should say something.Let's move on, and look back at this in the future if consensus gets clearer. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mdann, I agree that the previously overturned close does say something. This RfC has attracted closers with strong minority views. In the review of your close I deliberately left out diffs that you were opposed to the original RfC result (not a participant, but you opposed that consensus), and you supported the development of Superprotect. I took the high road and kept my mouth shut, because I could win the review without the drama. Alsee (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I could win the review"??? sounds like WP:BATTLE to me. In any case, when I make a closure, I approach it from the evidence and arguments provided, as opposed to my personal views on the situation, which have always sat in the "meh, not bothered" region. My main reason for supporting superprotect was not that I agreed with it, but as it was a ~~good~~ temporary solution to stop an edit war and get back to discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By "win the review" I meant "overturn an improper close". I would not challenge a close if I did not have a good-faith belief that there was a problem with it. Alsee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn close. It is nice that the closing rationale in this case (Special:Diff/637404322) is far more detailed than the previous one. That is definitely good. Unfortunately, the details seem to be of the kind that shouldn't have been there... There is a list of discounted arguments (that is good): "The large majority of supports for turning off the feature were either regarding issues addressed by subsequent improvements, expressing disappointment at the version of media viewer first deployed, frustration at the subsequent events, anger at the WMF, or did not provide a rationale. As such, those did not contribute to the result, neither did arguments regarding exceptions to consensus, speculation on the WMF response, or personal feelings on either side.". But I do not see such arguments in the discussion (certainly not a majority). What were those "issues addressed by subsequent improvements"? Whose argument was "anger at the WMF"? How does an argument "personal feelings on either side" even look like? Actually, something was explained in the talk page (Special:Diff/638110026). That is nice, but it is hard to see how numbers are supposed to add up to that "majority" that was promised (19 out of 75 have been listed; also 4 out of 36 "opposes").
Not that such weights are fully justifiable: for example, many "Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings" seem to be simply relevant opinions.

Then the closer proceeds to weighting of the arguments. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how that weighting takes opinions expressed in the discussion into account. For there were certain indicators which arguments had more weight - for example, those same "per X votes". They were ignored. Instead, arguments were dismissed or claimed to have been supported with something like "The argument that the media viewer does not show licensing information sufficiently compared to file pages is unsupported, since on file pages this information is below the image and in their overwhelming majority, readers will not scroll down to it and look at it since they already have what they're looking for, so file pages aren't that much of an opportunity to educate them."... That could be suitable for a "vote", but is it suitable for the close?

Also, the closer introduces a distinction between logged in and non-logged in users ("First off, it is crucial to make a distinction between logged in and logged out users, as most commentators agree, but such separation was not preserved in the format from the previous RFC.") for little reason. It was not in the discussion.

Then, the closer has simply claimed that "The media viewer has also been considerably revamped since then, so the issue being commented on is very different, and the community has a very different take on the situation, meaning the previous RFC result has become irrelevant (but I did consider the still relevant comments from there).", although there were arguments to the contrary in the discussion. No answer or reason why they were ignored was given.

Finally, it is strange to see something like " As noted, there is no consensus for either of the two main outcomes, but there is consensus for requesting several modifications to the media viewer, in order to address several points of enduring concern, expressed on both sides, which need to be resolved as soon as possible, though the implementation of each can be discussed further if needed", followed by 8 points "with consensus", that were not even discussed as such... That does look like a list of things the closer would personally support... But, once again, the closer shouldn't just throw out all discussion and simply declare that things he wants have "consensus". Therefore, I would say that this close should be overturned. -Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive, but as I said I can develop more now. Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap. (And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former.) As I said above, a "per x" vote is indisputably not an argument in itself and therefore there's no way it can contribute to the analysis of arguments, but again, they were considered when weighing arguments. The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments. I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC. Arguments regarding exceptions to consensus and WMF response did not contribute in the end because the conclusion was reached without them needing to be considered.

Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this.

As pointed out already most voters argued on the underlying issue (media viewer), so it was de facto (if not de jure) an extension of the previous RFC, and it is apparent that the state of consensus on the underlying issue changed. Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed. Of this it follows that the distinction between logged in and logged out users had to be made in order to gauge consensus on the underlying issue. Voters did so explicitly, such as when distinguishing editors from readers, or implicitly, such as when referencing the previous RFC in which the distinction was formalized in structure. In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part.

Regarding you penultimate paragraph, I've addressed this extensively above and in my previous answers (to sum up, for voters the determining factor was the underlying issue itself and it became obvious that the community's take on it had massively evolved).

All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments), or in linked discussions (customization and featured pictures). I gave a few examples of possible implementations but only for illustrative and clarity purposes, and I expressly invited further discussion on those points.

Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence. Cenarium (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the community's position had "massively evolved" you wouldn't be casting a supervote against more than 2-to-1 support, trying to vacate a consensus you don't like. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive" - well, I guess I cannot object to excessive length. My statement (and this response) are not very short either...

"Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap." - I see. That's clearer.

"And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former." - so, could you, please, make a list, so that we could check?

"The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments." - so, what issues (or what "votes") are that?

"I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC.". First of all, the RFC was asking if we should drop the issue. One of possible reasons to choose is quality of the software in question, but, contrary to your view, it is not the only reason. It is also legitimate to consider the relationship with WMF in long term. If you do not discount opinion that we should not fight WMF (let's say, oppose 25 - "Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary."), it is only fair to refuse to discount opinion that confronting WMF on this issue is a good idea. But let's look at specific "votes". You have listed five opinions classified like that: "31,40,41,45,73". I don't think it is right to consider that as basis for 31 (you could have classified it as one of "Votes with no rationale"). 40 is "Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting." - at the very least, "buggy" is also somewhat relevant if you ignore the "long-term view". 41 ("Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images") - well, what about those fact checkers? The description of the image is not really that visible in Media Viewer... 71 ("Moving from neutral to support, per 98.207.91.246's links under Neutral that show many disgruntled readers and very shaky evidence that Media Viewer is beneficial. I also think it's pretty impressive that someone began editing Wikipedia for the express purpose of protesting Media Viewer. Separately, considering some of the feedback left by readers, this feels like yet another case of releasing buggy software to the public and explaining away the detriment to readers and/or new editors by saying it will be fixed. Finally, there was already an RFC on this and the overwhelming consensus was to disable it. What's the holdup?") - can't think of anything wrong with it. Actually, it counts as a very good response to your "The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported". Unfortunately, you ignored it...

"Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this." - first of all, please, calm down. I do not say that you acted in bad faith and would appreciate that you would also respond likewise. So, now that that's dealt with, let's proceed. Yes, I have seen that argument. It is, at the very least, less developed than yours. And if you wanted to specify that you felt it was "a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section", you could have said so in the close (let's say, "I think arguments about copyright information have been answered by oppose 2."). It would have been shorter and clearer. Anyway, your evaluation does seem to ignore the point made in support 3 (difficult cases) and strong support of the argument (supports 3, 35, 36, 47, 59, 74, "per X votes" 6, 32, 60, 66, 67 vs. the oppose 2). And I don't think the oppose 2 is very strong (I hope we won't need to discuss that any further).

"Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed." - as I said, it was one possible reason to choose one option or another, but not the only one. You just mistakenly decided to ignore the others.

"In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part." - first of all, I am afraid that 5 "votes" do not justify such distinction, when it was not really discussed by the rest of participants. Second, well, do you seriously claim that support 26 ("Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not."), support 46 ("keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors.") or even oppose 6 ("It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do.") justify such distinction? In no "vote" that you mention was any different approach to logged-in and not-logged-in users proposed or advocated!

"All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments)" - sorry, but just because something was tangentially proposed in the discussion does not mean that it has consensus. There might have been users who do not agree, but avoided things that were "offtopic". Therefore, I do not find your approach suitable for closing discussions.

"Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence." - I do happen to think that I have offered some. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.

I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF, for example I counted support #68 and the second part of support #65, among others. What I discounted are comments which didn't contribute to the formation of consensus, because they didn't bring any reasoned argument to the discussion (which includes dismissive or angry comments when their arguments (if any) are expressed elsewhere in a reasoned way). Regarding support #71, you got the number wrong, it was support #73, but since you mentioned it, the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction.

The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC, so it was about more than just oppose #2 (some of them address the "complex cases argument", essentially that it's primarily a TLDR issue that isn't germane to media viewer).

Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well.

The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus.

I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users. Cenarium (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does." - sure. Did anyone claim otherwise?

"I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF" - OK, that's a bit clearer, although it would be far more clear after seeing a list.

"the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction." - yet it was enough to make a participant change his mind. It counts more than your personal view about needs of readers (which, by the way, should have no weight at all). And it is not merely opinion of one IP, but a pattern of reader feedback, with a challenge of evidence used to claim that "Media Viewer is useful to readers.". It shows that this claim is not as uncontroversial, as you claim in the closing statement. And if you have ignored that much of this "vote", that does make me question the rest of your work (that hasn't been presented for us to check). Also, since that claim was so important to your close, mishandling of this "vote" alone can call the whole close into question.

"The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC" - so, you took one discussion with a rather clear consensus to one side, added another discussion (with a lower weight) that had simply overwhelming consensus to the same side, and got no consensus? Sorry, but it doesn't look very believable. Something must have gone wrong.

"Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well." - but they didn't make a distinction.

"The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus." - they still need discussion about them, even if it is just "I propose X." followed by silence.

"I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users." - why only by uninvolved users? And why in plural? It shouldn't be much of an effort, as you must have made the list while closing the discussion. You just create an impression (hopefully, wrong) that there is something worth hiding there... It is very easy to demonstrate that it is wrong. Just upload the file with it and give a link here. It is not like closer doesn't have to defend his own close, when it is, at least, counterintuitive.

And there is still that part about issues (or "votes") that were discounted, because of changed situation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review. I'm not your "opponent". If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary, but I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it. The way it's headed, you and Aslee are just trying to win the argument by attrition, and I'm not going to play along. You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue". It may look like the easy way when a dozen of actively involved users face a single or a handful of uninvolved admins, but it's a tactic that is well known and won't work around here. Wikipedia is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months. Cenarium (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Nope, you are trying to re-debate the issue, as evidenced by your belief that I somehow provided my opinion when I only analyzed the debate, which isn't the purpose of a close review." - um, that would only be true if you did the close well. That hasn't been demonstrated.

"If there are legitimate concerns on my close, then uninvolved users will no doubt point them out and I'll provide more justification if necessary" - why specifically "uninvolved"?

"I've already thoroughly justified almost every aspect of it." - not in the least. As you have wrote yourself, "The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.".

"You are asking me to invest exponentially increasing amount of times, always finding a new "issue"." - no, I am asking you to do a very simple thing: upload the list of arguments or "votes" (with weights) that you have made while closing the discussion. If you closed the discussion properly, you simply had to make a spreadsheet or text file like with such list, for there were too many arguments and names to remember. Thus if you closed the discussion properly, then now the work you have to do would be less hard than writing this response to me.

Of course, if you did not close the discussion properly and just declared that you saw a "majority" because you felt like doing so (and, for all the length of your explanations, it looks like you still haven't given any conclusive evidence that you didn't do so), making a list will be hard. But then, defending a bad close should be very hard. And if you find it too hard, you are always free to give up.

"Wikipedia is already plagued enough as it is by contentious discussions which can't get any closer for weeks or months." - sorry, but I think that is still much better than bad closes. And if you think I should do something about that, I did write a "user essay" with a "checklist" for closing discussions (User:Martynas Patasius/Things to check while closing discussions - which, by the way, includes making lists). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved because I want to be certain that it is a legitimate concern on the close as opposed to a rehashing of the debate. I'm not going to give out a list when the only effect will be to give you as many reasons as there are entries for pointlessly rehashing the debate. Cenarium (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you think that those entries are not exactly perfectly obvious..? That they are, um, debatable..? And you do not want to publish them, because that would hurt your case..? Well, thank you - I don't think it is reasonable to expect you to admit that the reasoning supporting your close is weak in any stronger way.

Although I have to admit that I do not really understand what exactly do you mean by "rehashing the debate"... We have a discussion about weight of arguments concerning situation with Media Viewer, and it does seem to be different from RFC itself. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you admit that you are going to debate for hours every single minor point that isn't "exactly perfectly obvious", then I think you could not prove my point in any stronger way. I don't have such a written list anyway, I happen to have a good memory but I would still need to go through the discussion to get the exact references, I'm not going to do so just to satisfy your desire for pointless arguing. As for my case, it looks pretty good and I'm very much satisfied, thanks for asking. There's a whole lot of WP shortcuts I could throw out at this point but I'll refrain. You just spent the last several months focused on debating media viewer, don't you have other things to do ? I have. Cenarium (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there is no reason to expect much progress at this moment, if you are not even willing to "throw out WP shortcuts"...

Anyway, the positions are clear. You think that we should just trust you - not merely your good will or judgement, but also your memory and mathematical ability. I think that we shouldn't have to do that and that the reasoning behind the close should be explained in such detail that it wouldn't be necessary...

I would say that my position is more in line with Wikipedia:Closing discussions (Special:Diff/630391195 - "A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.") and corresponds to other policies (for example, we do not just "trust" someone's expertise without sources)... You obviously disagree... I guess someone who closes this discussion will have to decide which arguments are better... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 04:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to point out that the only uninvolved users are Hobit and Sladen (all others either commented in the RFC, or for Mdann52, closed it previously), and neither Hobit nor Sladen asked for an overturn. I will also point out that the previous close review was advertized in a non-neutral way at village pump (proposals) in a new section. While this didn't affect the previous close review, for which agreement was wide, the users who commented there were subsequently individually notified about the present close review. Although the individual notifications were neutral, this may affect the present close review since the individuals notified were from a group biased by the previous non-neutral advertizing. Only two users who commented here were not notified in this way, they are Fluffernutter and Sladen, none of them asked for an overturn. Cenarium (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the several involved but the review closer usually discounts those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but I thought I would share my findings since I had checked myself. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this ad hominem (and yes, it is ad hominem - you argue that arguments should be ignored because of who their authors are) mean that you do not really have a good answer to the arguments themselves (for example, the ones I have given)..?

But let's look at the opinions of users whom you consider to be uninvolved. Both Hobit and Sladen indicated that they do not really care that much (as one might suspect, that often explains why uninvolved users are uninvolved). They didn't say they want the close to be overturned, but they didn't say they endorse it either. Fluffernutter is oppose 5.

Furthermore, one can construct other similar arguments. For example, "One of two users whose opinion started with 'endorse close' is oppose 11, another one is the previous closer, who closed in the same way.". What does that tell us? Only that ad hominem is not a strong argument... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to review the definition of ad hominem, which consists in commenting on the character of a person, not quite the same thing as noting that several commentators participated in the RFC whose close is being reviewed. I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations. Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations." - I am happy to hear that. Oh, and, since you gave me an excuse - merry Christmas (to you and to other participants)!

"Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote." - I don't see where I suggested that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Martinyas Pastasius, your arguments cite no policy, so your arguments are not good. You also point to factually unsupported arguments - such arguments are not good. Your arguments are also contrary to CONLIMITED, NOVOTE, IDONTLIKEIT, and the instructions at VPT, not to mention CONEXCEPT. There is no ad hominem -- the involved arguments, such as you and I and Alsee, et al., in review, are generally discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, I guess you are not actually quoting my arguments and policy, because you expect that the closer will ignore your arguments anyway? As you wish... Although I do hope that your arguments (or lack of them, if you do not want to present them) will be taken into account. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that arguing and arguing and arguing until you impose the close you want is seen through - as will be that you have no policy nor facts. You dislike it, that's already well understood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Panel of 3 After the original (overturned) close, at least four[6][7][8][9] people called for a panel of three to close this. It's seriously needed here. Alsee (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been nice, but it didn't happen. Given the associated drama with this RFC, it's now unlikely to ever happen, even if we did overturn this close. Maybe we could get that if we held a new RFC in a few months. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NinjaRobotPirate, if it is reopened, is that a support or oppose for panel of 3 on a reclose? Alsee (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Could use some help... thread reopened~~
~~Can someone please block User:Hashemabucu. S/he is creating spam articles back to back and nothing is happening at WP:AIV. Thanks. APK whisper in my ear 11:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]~~
Done Blocked by User:Gilliam and all articles deleted. APK whisper in my ear 11:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Reopening archived thread to point to this report on user:Hashemabucu120 on ANI. Hashemabucu is the older account, by a whopping four minutes, but the two have been creating the same "article" over and over, simultaneously. I don't really have the time, but would somebody like to merge these two reports, and/or to look for more socks and more versions of the article, etc? I would suggest ANI is the best place for it. Bishonen | talk 17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
~~Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering~~
Yesterday evening (well, today in GMT) I did a Non-Administrative Closure of an open RFC at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_engineering#Editing_disagreement_over_soot_particles. I concluded that there was rough consensus to mention the injection of soot particles as a form of climate engineering, but not to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter". I then had a request from an IP to re-open the closure, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=640125111&oldid=640098032. The IP does not appear to be one of the participants in the original discussion, but IP addresses change. In reviewing the closure, I think that my closure was correct, and that there is no need to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter", which are mentioned in the paper, but do not have to be in the article. I am not planning to re-open my closure but understand that my closure can be re-opened here by an admin after discussion. Since some of the editors were talking past each other in the RFC, I did suggest that if anyone was dissatisfied with the closure, they might try the dispute resolution noticeboard to request a volunteer moderator to facilitate more focused discussion. I am willing to have my closure reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed. Granted I had been away on business for a number of days and hadn't had the time to reply to the other involved editor's argument, I am however, now back and wish to continue the discussion process.
I diligently ping the other editor in the discussion when replies are made to the RFC and find this premature close needless and a bit antagonistic. As no warning, or even a note, had been posted on the talk page giving due notice to those concerned that it would be closed in XYZ number of days, instead, I arrived to reply and found that, much to my chagrin, the whole page was locked from further discussion. I dutifully contacted the closer:Robert McClenon, in the hopes that they would revert the enforcement of the lockout, or even to get involved and give their 2 cents to the RFC, but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. The close does appear to correctly read the consensus. Although participation was low, no editor apart from the proposer appears to have been in favour of making reference to firestorms and nuclear winters in the article. This means that there was no consensus to make such references in the article. The IP user should note that this does not mean that they are banned from discussing the matter further with other editors, just that a holding-position has been reached, which will not change unless/until they can get consensus for what they want. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That was curiously fast and I think a bit of a mis-characterization, I am simply in favor of summarizing the proposal with the very spirit of that found in the 2 peer-reviewed papers. Honestly, we already have a full length paragraph on the thing here Nuclear_winter#Climate_engineering. So a single concise sentence, much like those used by the actual scientists that are referenced(Paul Crutzen), with a link to that above article section would suffice, No? Secondly I am now rather confused, how can a "consensus for what I want" be reached or "further discussion on the matter with other editors" occur on the talk page, when the RFC has been closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can open a new section on the talkpage, saying that you wish to continue discussion, because you are not satisfied that the correct outcome was reached in the RfC. If you can win either new editors or editors who participated in the RfC over to your point-of-view, then you may be able to achieve a new consensus. Of course, I can't promise you that this would be successful, just informing you that you are entitled to try it. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, so I have to open another RfC? Why can't the one that was open only yesterday just be re-opened? The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along. Honestly I need to express that this is like the twilight zone, we have editors claiming they seemingly "know better" than the writings of 3 peer-reviewed climate scientists, one of which is a Nobel prize winner. The consensus should be what is peer-reviewed. Not what wiki-editors feel.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to start another RfC, just a regular discussion will do. In fact, that's better if you don't want someone to come along and close it in a month.

I can't really comment on who is right and wrong in the dispute, because I don't know, but perhaps the other editors don't so much feel they know better than the peer-reviewed sources, more that they feel able to make an editorial judgement about what words to quote and not quote. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the rules does it say that requests for comments must be closed within a month? All I've read is that Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. - So, seen as BOTH editors involved are willing to continue to comment, was not the closure of the RfC obviously premature and contrary to policy?

Secondly, I am now honestly curious by your argument, why does wikipedia enertain non-scientists being arrogant enough to think they can go "make editorial judgements about words to quote"? Isn't that what trash tabloids are renowned for doing? There is 1 thing of making things as simple as possible, but as Einstein said, they should be made no simpler. I agree with making it easy for lay readers by stating things in plain English, but that is a world apart entirely from the "editting" process of engaging in bastardizing the spirit of the plain English of 2 completely independent peer-reviewed papers. Omitting important climate terms, that will, I guarantee you, result in readers being misled and confused.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the close seems to accurately reflect the discussion. I don't deny that the papers mention nuclear winter and firestorm soot, but there seems to be a consensus among editors that the article shouldn't include those terms at this time. You may take this as administrator endorsement of the close, if you wish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
~~Further Thoughts by Closer~~
I had no involvement in this question until I closed the RFC. However, I have a few comments, since the IP seems to be trying to raise a variety of arguments that do not seem to be based on policy or guideline.
The IP wrote: "The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed." The RFC was concluded: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time." There was no request to extend the RFC, which had been open for 43 days. The claim that the RFC was prematurely closed is unsubstantiated.
I did not know that the IP who requested closure revert was the originator of the RFC. The originating IP and the requesting IP are in entirely different blocks. By the way, IP, that is another reason why I encouraged you to create a registered account. It is also a reason why many closers minimize the contributions of IP editors, because they cannot tell whether multiple IP addresses are one human being or multiple human beings.
The IP wrote: "but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason." This is being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard because this is the proper venue for the review of closures. I was not reporting the IP for misconduct, but was using the standard an-notice template to inform the requesting IP of the closure review. The IP requested that I revert or re-open the closure. After that request, I reviewed the RFC and my closure, and I did not think that I had made a mistake, but was willing to be reviewed. I see nothing in the guidelines about RFCs that requires, encourages, or even permits a closure to be re-opened simply to allow a late comment after the RFC has expired, and has not been extended. Since I thought that I had acted in process, but wished to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I voluntarily asked for closure review. I see that two editors endorse my closure, and that the IP does not, but his or her arguments appear to be tendentious rather than persuasive.
The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them. Any reader who goes from the references to the paper will see that. How much of the content of a referenced paper should be included in an encyclopedic article is a matter of judgment as to what is due and undue weight.
The IP states that: "The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along." There were multiple editors who replied to the RFC. The last reply was on 4 December 2014. It was hardly hasty to close it on 29 December 2014.
As was mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked", and the talk page isn’t closed. The RFC is closed unless the closure reviewers think that it should be re-opened. The IP has a right to continue discussion, either via another RFC (which may have the same result), or via round-and-round discussion on the talk page, or, as I suggested, at the dispute resolution noticeboard with a volunteer moderator who will try to encourage interactive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked". It was a fair closure of that debate. Other debates, in the future, may have different conclusions. Igor the bunny (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to the falsehoods in User talk:Robert McClenon's argument. He claims that the closure was done nice and proper, however how is one supposed to really get a sense of that when he repeatedly states things that are demonstrably untrue? In both his RfC closing argument that he gave and most recently here just hours ago he and others have written - "The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them.". However, you will forgive me for not being convinced you know what you're talking about, as the papers actually never mention firestorm, but they do repeatedly mention nuclear winter and therefore I thought it more than worthy of using that very term. As you can imagine, when someone makes arguments based on falsehoods like that, you really have to wonder, did they even read the papers or the accompanying arguments in their favor?

Secondly, what the rest of you are telling me is - No we cannot possibly re-open the RfC even though, I requested that it be re-opened VERY quickly. I must instead start a whole new talk page section and copy-paste both my and Jon's continuing arguments into that? This really all seems rather pedantic, and not to mention, it will result in connected discussions being spread all over the place on the talk page, for really no sound reason. As policy appears to dictate Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment.

92.251.172.194 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you should probably do is brush up on WP:How to lose, and then let things settle for a while. WP:There is no deadline for getting a given word into the article. Try working on something else for a while, and come back to this later. Generally speaking, if you open a new discussion on the same subject immediately, you get not only the same unfavorable response from the same people disagreed with you before, but you even get other people yelling at you and insisting that the old discussion was right (including people who would have never commented or who might have agreed with you under other circumstances). Take a break, and let it calm down. Wikipedia will still be here a few months from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about "winning" but a desire to wrap this all up, tying up loose ends and getting on with real life issues. Perhaps, you're unaware that this issue is already over 3 months old, with large stretches of inactivity, and all I've received so far, is 2 non-expert wikipedia editors trying to argue that they know better than peer-reviewed scientists, one of whom is even a Nobel prize winner. I'm sure you can imagine that, if you were in my shoes, you'd be pretty eager to get this obviously clear cut issue resolved too. Of course the scientists are right and the excuse of wikipedia "editor judgement" is unconvincing, especially considering their, recent, indefensible [post RfC closure, insinuation - that both of the peer-reviewed paperS were "incompetently reviewed". Which really seems to be the heart of their argument all along, that Jon's POV is superior to those Nobel prize winning scientists, and the scientists that peer-reviewed their paper.
In any case, you glossed over the RfC policy I brought up. Which dictates Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. Both myself, and the only editor who responded to the RfC, User:JonRichfield have continued to comment on the discussion here, as initially linked above - So this clearly meets the policy criteria, does it not?

92.251.237.140 (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally expect closers to take into account discussions that will take place in the future. Formerip (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close it accurately summarized majority consensus. Alsee (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirects for ALL emoji flags~~
Hello! First of all I want to warn you that the following characters won't render on all platforms, I am talking about the regional indicator symbols.
Currently 🇯🇵, 🇰🇷, 🇩🇪, 🇨🇳, 🇺🇸, 🇫🇷, 🇪🇸, 🇮🇹, 🇷🇺 and 🇬🇧 already exist for the flags already supported on iOS. But now all flags (for example 🇳🇱 (NL, Netherlands)) are also supported on Android 5.0 "Lollipop".
I think we should add redirects (with a bot) for all ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 two-letter country codes to the appropriate flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin0van0der0vliet (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~@Robin0van0der0vliet: A list would be helpful since I have no idea how to type any of these. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Administrators: I was unable to create the Netherlands redirect as it's on a vandalism blacklist. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
Netherlands created. I likewise have no idea what else to do without a list. Nyttend (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will create a list for you, I post it here when it is ready. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Need more admins to monitor GamerGate sanctions~~
Per this discussion, [10] we could use some more admins to help enforce the GamerGate sanctions. We currently have 6 open RfE's, 4 of which not a single admin has commented.[11] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Close review please~~
My RfC close at Template talk:Infobox person is being questioned, so I'd be grateful for some independent views on whether I accurately summarised the consensus. Please see my talk page for further information.—S Marshall T/C 14:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The close on the infobox matter is fine, of course. The concern appears when it comes to the lead; given that the RfC was opened with ...without any bearing on the MOS question of whether the pronunciation belongs in the lead, it really should not have been discussed in that particular RfC, but for better or for worse, it was. I endorse that there was no consensus on the issue of the lead, but I probably would have left out the "commonsense" view comments. I think those views are reasonable, but better suited for participation. I do think it's appropriate for S Marshall to have noted that editorial judgment still applies when it comes to the lead. Another RfC specific to the lead is probably best; it's not going to get figured out by any closer from this one RfC. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Need ban reversal~~

UPHELD

Consensus is clearly the ban is appropriate. NE Ent 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The administrator "HJ Mitchell" has banned me from editing anything to do with Gamergate.
I have not done anything wrong so my banning is unlawful.
The Gamergate controversy centers on concerns about ethics in games journalism. This needs to be described at length in the article on the Gamergate controversy, but biased editors are preventing the truth from being described. Ksolway (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ping @HJ Mitchell: since I don't see a notification of this report. Chillum 21:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also let him know at the talk page. I'll await his response. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your edit history, it's incredibly unlikely that you'll be unbanned. I recommend finding other interesting topics to edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, I see a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a strong belief in WP:TRUTH. Therefore, I endorse the topic ban. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just acknowledging that I'm aware of this discussion. Thank you to Chillum and Thargor for the notifications. I don't have anything to add at the moment, but will of course abide by whatever the community decides. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this in mind, I think a blanket topic ban goes much too far here. A warning, perhaps indicating exactly why people believe his edits are a problem, would make sense here, but his actions are far from what would be requested for a full blanket ban. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Ksolway has been editing this sensitive topic in a non-neutral way and has ignored the concerns raised over their conduct at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement#Ksolway (and intends to do a lot more of this judging from their statement at the start of this thread). As such, the topic ban is sensible. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban per Ksolway's edits (pick any from Special:Contributions/Ksolway, say diff) and comments at WP:GS/GG/E#Statement by Ksolway. It's standard to AGF and spend hours explaining procedures to editors on a mission, but the gamergate issue is far too exhausting for that procedure as many editors have either joined or returned to spread the truth. Consider the above topic ban appeal—it shows no sign of someone wanting to know how they might better engage with the community. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the community utterly failed to engage with him. This is a great example of the problems with the sanctions as they sit. Here's someone who makes constructive edits that go against what has been deemed the consensus at the talk page, and he's immediately tossed into the sanction craziness and threatened by multiple editors. He brings it to talk, as we would expect constructive editors to do, and he discusses his desired edits. He's gone for a few days, edits the draft page (which is there specifically to hash out edits), and now he's being topic banned? Absolutely the wrong call. I see some frustration with editors who simply blindly reverted his edits and were not especially kind about their points of view. Ksolway needs to be given the opportunity to be coached a bit on consensus and such before being banned from ever discussing it ever on the site. It's draconian. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that "the community utterly failed to engage with him" is utter nonsense. Tony Sidaway opened an entire talk page thread specifically discussing his concerns with Ksolway's edits and reasonably providing a basis for discussion — that Ksolway's edits did not reflect what the reliable sources say about Gamergate and were therefore unacceptable. A number of other editors chimed in, and discussion began. Ksolway's response to this discussion was to simply repeat their declaratory statement that there hasn't been anyone found guilty of harassment, so it cannot be said that there has been harassment (an obviously-illogical and non-policy-based claim — compare "there hasn't been anyone found guilty of murder, so it cannot be said that a person was murdered") and emphatically state that they would revert the material again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing a contrary opinion is not grounds for a topic ban. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for a topic ban. The grounds for this action are extremely shaky. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban per the evidence in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement and per "The Gamergate controversy centers on concerns about ethics in games journalism". Because, as is self-evident from both the general coverage of the topic in the media, and the ridiculous bunfight we've seen on Wikipedia, it doesn't - and anyone who thinks they can simply sweep the issues that have been the real focus of attention under the carpet is clearly incapable of contributing towards encyclopaedic coverage of the subject with even an iota of objectivity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support reduction as I believe a topic ban was warranted, but an indef is incredibly excessive. Actually trying to discuss the issue with the editor directly could go a long way to resolving any concerns.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is 'indefinite' not infinite - and given that this contributor (unlike some involved in the GG bunfight) has edited on other topics, the way open is obvious - s/he needs to demonstrate through editing unrelated material that their contributions are useful. I suspect that this nonsense will have all died down within a few months anyway, at which point we may all be in a better position to look at GG more objectively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I and several other editors have repeatedly tried to get this editor to engage with the community from the first day. He just doesn't want to. An enforcement request was closed because he had stopped editing, so his response was to resume edit warring immediately.

He fails the minimum requirement for constructive editing in an environment where the community has already decided needs careful management through community sanctions. The ban is in the community's best interests. --TS 13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of efforts to actually engage the editor. A bunch of templates and notifications does not strike me as a serious effort to engage someone.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement surprised me so much I thought I had misremembered. Actually I hadn't. I started a discussion of my revert which was actually called "Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit to the lede by Ksolway" and, when there was no response on the talk page several hours later when this editor was still edit warring on the draft article without engaging at all on the talk page (while others did), I invited this new user with the words "Please join the discussion of your proposed changes to the article lede at Talk:Gamergate controversy. I highly recommend the essay BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (also known as BRD) as a guide to reaching consensus on Wikipedia content." The following day, ksolway made two combative attempts to justify their edits, and two days later they issued an edit protected request. They did not discuss the topic again.

On any topic, that would be considered to be an exemplary attempt to engage a new editor. We all know that. --TS 19:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was certainly exemplary of something, but not of an attempt at engaging an editor.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. This user's talk page shows plenty of evidence of attempts to engage this editor. This user's statement here is a clear indication of a battleground mentality. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user's talk page contains one welcome template from a year ago, three warning templates, a notification of a sanction request, and a topic ban notification. Only thing showing an actual attempt at engaging the editor is Tony's notification of a discussion on the user's edits. Not seeing anything that actually warrants an indefinite topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly more attempts than were made to reach out to another disruptive user you recently complained about on ANI. Did you attempt to engage with either this editor or Ksolway? Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think anyone who compares those two users will find the situations are completely different.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the nature of those two situations, you were involved in both of them. Did you take any steps to engage either editor? Why not? If you are going to allege that no "actual attempt" was made by those involved in this situation, then the blame for not making any attempt lies with you as well. Gamaliel (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why should any blame lie with me when this discussion is the first time I have talked about this user?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have ample time to be one of the most vocal editors on everything even remotely related to GamerGate and you expound at length about what others should do or have done incorrectly, yet you've made no effort to engage with this editor yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban for now: they can't say they weren't given enough notice of the problems. Perhaps we might consider removing the topic ban after some time period -- say a month or so from now -- to see if they can contribute usefully to the topic, but I can't say I'm optimistic about this. -- The Anome (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban per my comments above. --TS 19:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban. Your statement "biased editors are preventing the truth from being described" is probably the biggest red flag that exists on Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban, at least until arbitration is completed. The appellant's own statement does not help: "biased editors are preventing the truth from being described." It appears that he is seeking to right great wrongs, and, if so, Wikipedia is the wrong place. The appellant has shot himself in the foot. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse topic ban, per Stephan Schulz. The ban by HJ Mitchell is perfectly reasonable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Request rather urgent move of pages and correction of associated log entries~~
The recently-created page Killing of Dave Owen Ward and the AfD I started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Dave Owen Ward need to be moved because the name of the article's subject was misspelled - it should be Dave Oren Ward instead of "Owen". As I do not want to give the impression of carrying out actions while conflicted, and I'm bound to miss something somewhere, I'd appreciate it if another administrator would kindly make the required moves and corrections to log entries. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the article, the article talk page, the afd page, and the link on the afd log. I think that's it. I left the redirects behind in case the afd is being pointed to somewhere. If I've missed something, let me know (or, fix it yourself; I ~~can't imagine in a million years a Wikipedian complaining~~ think there's a decent chance very few people will complain about "WP:INVOLVED"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Floquenbeam. I don't do a lot of work on any side of AfD, and I confess I'm somewhat disturbed at the conspiracy theories raising their heads on this discussion. Better safe than sorry. Risker (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Why do we need to move the AFD? Sure, the article should have been moved (no good reason to misspell his name), but the AFD's just an internal discussion, and someone could have explained the pagemove. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, *I* don't understand. What is the big problem moving the AFD page? It just seemed simpler and cleaner and less confusing this way. If it matters, by all means move it back, and educate me on why it matters. If it doesn't matter, why are you complaining? --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just trying to understand why the page should be moved. Let me quote WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. Obviously this is one of those situations in which the article should have been moved (presumably the warning is talking about other types of moves, e.g. "Dave Oren Ward" being moved to "Killing of Dave Oren Ward"), but I can't remember ever before seeing an AFD discussion itself moved, even when the article itself was. I'm trying to understand why this situation warrants an unusual action, especially because of its potential technical ramifications. It would also be appreciated if you would explain why my simple process question must be taken as a complaint. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as an "unusual action", I see it as a completely rational action. If any closing scripts are going to be confused, I would think it would be when the AFD name and the article name don't match. Can you think of any actual technical problems the moving of the AFD page might cause? If so, or if this action was simply too unusual to be tolerated, then again, feel free to move it back. As for your umbrage at the word "complaining", normally I might apologize, but you lost the moral high ground to complain about that when you helpfully bluelinked AGF for me; that's a dick move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Legal threat~~
User:Helloaryan needs blocking. See Talk:Satyananda_Saraswati#Legal_Implication_of_Adding_Controversy.2FControversies_section. Admin, kindly semi protect the Talk:Satyananda_Saraswati page also, it is attracting lot of sock puppet/meat-puppet accounts.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These three edits and this one are Helloaryan's only edits to this talk page, and he's never edited the article. I don't see a legal threat, even after looking at it multiple times and reading through the linked news story; the situation makes me think that he's more giving a caution, basically "Be more careful or you'll risk getting sued by Saraswati's associates", but not "Be more careful or you'll risk getting sued by me". Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, semiprotected for a week. Thank you for providing the Facebook link at this talk page, or I wouldn't have seen enough reason to protect it in any way. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for semi. But the meat accounts have become smarter, accumulating auto confirmed status before coming to this article's talk page. Can we file meat-puppetry report at WP:SPI ?--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can, but you're convinced that they're meat puppets, don't bother filing a checkuser request — checkusers can only determine people's physical locations and networks, and if one is hundreds of kilometres away from one's meatpuppet friend, the checkuser won't find a thing. Just ask them to make a determination based on behavior. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Subverting in article Kim Tae-hyung (1995)~~
Hello,Unfortunately one IP Subverting in article Kim Tae-hyung (1995) and remove the delete tag without Add Reliable source,This article is direct once the survey to Bangtan Boys,Kim TaehyungPlease check(Pikhmikh (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
The issue is that User:68.67.92.75 has twice removed the BLPPROD tag from the article. The IP has been warned. Semi-protection has been requested to prevent further removal of the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected for two weeks. Miniapolis 00:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Admin needed to make fix~~
Could somebody please move Judeo-Aramaic languages() to Judeo-Aramaic languages. User:Kwamikagami apparently decided to move Judeo-Aramaic language to Judeo-Aramaic languages, as his edit summary indicates, but made a typo. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. If I've screwed anything up, feel free to fix my goof-ups. Deor (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've taken care of the redirects. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Topic ban proposal for Royroydeb~~
A number of editors have raised concerns on my talk page about Royroydeb (talk · contribs)'s BLP creations. The articles he is starting about BLPs are simply poorly or incorrectly sourced, and others are just plain non-notable. Numerous editors have raised this issue with him before (see e.g. here and here) and he has also been recently warned here - all with no response or acknowledgment, and all with no change in behavior. This mass creation of inadequately sourced BLPs (recent example here) is disruptive and there is a competence issue here, for both BLP policy and notability requirements. I therefore propose that Royroydeb is indefinitely topic banned from creating BLPs. Giant Snowman 11:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but for six months - Royroydeb has created quite a lot of BLPs that blatantly fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY; many of which are just one-liners. In my opinion, the worst ones were Sheyi Ojo and Oluwaseyi Ojo; although you could argue that he is at least marginally notable, those two names are different names for the same player. The articles even use the exact same source. Royroydeb has shown absolutely no signs of discussing their actions whatsoever, but I don't think jumping straight on an indefinite topic ban is necessarily the best solution; six months seems better, with an indefinite one to follow if things do not improve. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - by giving the user an indef ban, we are telling he that (s)he can't do it ever unless (s)he is willing to discuss issues with us. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A few months ago, he accurately explained the footballer notability guideline to another editor, and HERE, he proposed for deletion an article about a footballer who is an under-age international for his country and has never played first-team football. Two hours later, he created the Sheyi Oyo articles, one straight after the other, articles about a footballer who is an under-age international for his country and has never played first-team football...

At GiantSnowman's talk page, I mentioned three not particularly recent instances of the editor's attitude to sourcing of BLPs but didn't add any evidence, so I'd better do so here. In Oct 2013, he posted a news item to a self-publishing website under his own name and then cited it in a BLP. In May 2014, he used a dead foreign-language reference copied from another article as a source for this BLP: confirmation HERE, just below where he agrees to train a newcomer in good article reviewing... And in Aug 2014, at this BLP, he added content citing a page from someone's online FM2014 game story; I commented at his talk page HERE.

Unfortunately, I think the editor has been getting away with so much for so long that the only way he can be reined in is to do something he can't ignore. But "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". If removing his ability to create BPLs makes him realise that if he wants to stay here, he has to respect our norms and policies – communication, sourcing... – over a decent length of time, perhaps at least six months, then there's no reason why the ban can't be lifted. Let's hope a topic ban doesn't mean he devotes more of his time to adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. He is a very prolific editor... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Does not communicate with nobody and still does not improve in his creations. MYS 77 ^✉ 15:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As well explained above, the BLP creations has several issues with notability and sourcing. QED237 (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It's articles like Esteban Becker that make me support this Topic ban... JMHamo (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban. It seems reasonable to keep this user away from the area they are being disruptive in. Chillum 19:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I personally don't know what went wrong, when he first started he was great to have on board and his edits really did help (plus he communicated) but now it seems like he just does things for the sake of doing things. An indefinite ban is, in my opinion, the correct course of action. If, after a while, he can come back and finally explain his actions then I would not mind him regaining the right to create articles again and do everything else he does. Cheers. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal: I admit that I have created articles in a rush, but I have never let articles in that mess. But I would like to apologise for the Oji articles mess up. Finally, I firmly believe that my action is misinterpreted of disruptive creation of BLP. Thanks ! :-) RRD13 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is a blatant lie. Some of your articles (I mean the vast majority of them) are not a mess due to other people's work. If you're creating articles in this type of rush, better not to do this. Thanks, MYS 77 ^✉ 11:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~Ban~~ Block appeal~~
~~Copied from [12]: NE Ent 17:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Appeal~~
~~I hereby appeal this ban. If I am unbanned, then going forward, I promise to:~~
1. Always keep in mind that my actions here must be in alignment with the goals of Wikipedia.

2. In pursuit of 1., to use my powers of persuasion rather than insults to convince others that my arguments are the best arguments.

3. If 2. fails, to drop any particular issue if an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator gives me an explicit instruction to do so.
~~To prevent any wasted time on either side, then per CBAN and because of the reasons for the ban, this appeal is made on the following assumptions:~~
Comments from involved and uninvolved users should be clearly separated. I would think a reasonable definition of involved here is if they opposed me in an AFD. If anyone disagrees with this, I expect them to clear up the issue before they comment.

Comments shall be carefully scrutinised for personal attacks or other prohibited behaviour, especially misrepresentation. Interpreting facts is fine, inventing or selectively presenting facts in order to suit an interpretation is not.

I will not agree to refrain from checking the edits of, or interacting with, Davey2010, as long as while doing so I am complying with the relevant rules of conduct. The area I could be of most use to Wikipedia is buses and bus transport, specifically in the UK, and Davey2010 is heavily active in this area, therefore I couldn't possibly hope to avoid him even if I was trying to (a quick check of 6 random articles in List of bus operators of the United Kingdom revealed he's previously editted 4 of them). Notforlackofeffort (talk
~~Discussion~~
This isn't an appeal, it's an attempt to stake out conditions for doing what we're all supposed to do unconditionally: to fully comply with Wikipedia's policies. An appeal should be granted if and only if the banned editor agrees to comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and to avoid a future repetition of the conditions that got them banned. In this instance, as a minimum I'd expect to see a solemn promise to completely and permanently cease all contact with the editor who was harassed. Looking at the editing history, I'm not persuaded that they're here to contribute, because the vast majority of all their edits are comments on deletion discussions. --TS 18:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too little time has passed. The community just banned you. I suggest you try asking for the standard offer in 6 months. One of the best ways to demonstrate your willingness and ability to contribute here is to edit another project in the meantime. Chillum 19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both comments above. BMK (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard offer. This appeal comes far too soon. It's not required, but as per Chillum, editing another Wikimedia project in the meantime might demonstrate that you may be able to conduct yourself in a civil and collegial manner here if allowed back in 6 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the community voted to indefinitely block this user, not to ban them. The blocking admin got their terminology wrong, and hasn't helped matters by using both ban and block in their commentary. Regardless, the "terms of unblock" here are wholly inappropriate and show a pretty poor understanding of what got them blocked in the first place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Luke's assessment. To reiterate: the user was not banned by the community. We have blocks, and we have bans. Two very different things. The "grey area" is often less murky once one understands the actual difference. And, of course, the "terms" offered here are unacceptable. But he still is not banned by the community. A de facto ban for an indeffed editor traditionally comes after additional disruption (e.g. egregious socking) leads to a real, formal community ban proposal. Doc talk 02:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Society of Humanitarianism~~
Posting this here, as I'm not sure what the hell happened to this page.
Has this been copy-paste moved from another article, stripping the references to [1] [2] [3]? Has it been vandalized? Is this some horrific VisualEditor bug? Copyvio? I don't know, and think admins might be better able to find out... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything unusual in the editing history. AFAICS it never had any references. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably from the Dutch version? Is this a partial translation? Rmhermen (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I check the Dutch version, it looks like it is. Is this a problem? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Requesting consensus review/input on dispute at WP:WikiCup~~
I realize that isn't typical AN stuff, but there doesn't really seem to be a better place to post it...
Each year after the WikiCup finishes there is a period of time where people discuss possible ways to improve the contest (mostly by re-balancing the point system): WT:WikiCup/Scoring. The judges (this year Sturmvogel 66, Figureskatingfan, and Miyagawa) then assess the consensus and implement any changes before the next cup starts. This year, the decisions were not announced until the eve of the new contest and some unintuitive readings of the discussions were implemented. Specifically:
Featured articles were raised from 100 to 200 points

Featured pictures were reduced from 35 to 20 points, but a bonus of up to 15 points can now be earned (as opposed to 0 bonus previously)

The bonus system for articles was overhauled.
These changes have led to a good deal of frustration from several people, as can be seen at WT:WikiCup. After a little prodding, the judges posted a statement saying they ran simulations to find ways to balance the contest and came up with those numbers. Now, it may well be a good idea to run such simulations, but such simulations should not be used in lieu of the discussion based consensus. While it is true that one concern is balancing points so all contestants have a fair chance, it is also true that the tradition balance also takes into account how important given content is to Wikipedia. The original bonus system was implemented to encourage work on high-importance articles, not necessarily to give more points for harder work (althoguh there is some overlap). Additionally, the amount of featured pictures (FPs) contributors is very low, so determining what a "normal" FP contributor can earn is not really possible. Thus any model is guess work and should not replace human judgement, and especially should not override individual discussions that involved several experienced editors.
Last year, the contest was won by Godot13 who concentrated mostly on featured pictures. As a result, there was a lot of heated discussion on FPs. After much effort, a number of us (myself, Godot13, Nergaal, Adam Cuerden, and Crisco 1492) on both sides of the debate came up with a compromise solution suggested by TownCows whereby the base value of FPs would be reduced, but a bonus system similar to that in place for articles would be added. The spirit of the compromise was that most FPs would be worth slightly less than before, but especially important ones would be able to earn more points than before. The implemented change, however, reduces the points such that the max possible is the same as the normal before (35) and the vast majority of FPs will earn significantly less points (20). It should be noted that numerically, there were more people against any reduction at all than in favor of one.
Exasperating the frustration of FP contributors is that FAs were simultaneously increased from 100 points to 200. While there was broad consensus to increase the FA score, the only numbers actually suggested were 125 and 150. The 200 appears to be an invention of the judges.
A somewhat mitigating factor was that the article bonus structure was overhauled to prevent extremely high multipliers. Unfortunately, there was very little discussion on changing the bonus system, and absolutely none on the drastic change implemented. Thus, it is very hard to justify the changes based on consensus.
Overall, the changes implemented may or may not make the contest better. That isn't the issue. The problem is they were implemented not by consensus, but rather based on a simulation created by the judges and not discussed by the WikiCup community. This is not the right way to do things. The judges have said they are open to making changes. Thus, my hope by posting this here more people will read the previous discussions to better determine what consensus based changes should be implemented. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded -Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aye - Godot13 (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely uninvolved perspective: I've never been involved with the WikiCup, but I have the page on my watchlist because as a past FAC coordinator, I wanted a heads-up for when the influx of nominations would be coming. I have been watching this unfurl with some bemusement, to say the least. Without being too verbose, I'd say it's clear that the current judges have made some unilateral decisions about the scoring system that mostly impact FP contributors. I looked over most of the scoring debates and don't see anything resembling consensus for the current numbers, or in some cases anyone even suggesting the current numbers. To be clear, I have no doubt that the judges have been genuine about their reasons for adjusting the scores as such and that they are acting in good faith, but I can also empathize with the folks who earn their WikiCup points with FPs.
This was a massive thing to roll out right before the contest started, and done in such a way that participants didn't have time to digest it let alone comment on it or strategize for how they want to earn points. I know there was a changing of the guard and maybe things got disorganized, so we have to have some empathy for the new judges as well.
As for the way forward, I don't see that there's much anyone can do other than dropping out of the WikiCup if they don't agree with the scoring system. Changing it now would be unfair to anyone participating under the guise of the current point values. Maybe someone decided to start the cup by working on an FA instead of a FP because of the point values. You would be screwing them over by changing it now. --Laser brain (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abolish it (Wikicup). Wikipedia is supposed to collaborative, not competitive. WP:WIKICUP states "The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun" (emphasis mine). Last year ended with a stupid pissing contest regarding the cup --see ANI thread; now it's only January 4th and there's already a AN thread... admin wiki-time is a limited resource and should be expended on important things that affect mainspace. If a group of editors voluntarily wishes to create a project to motivate themselves to improve the encyclopedia, that's a good thing, if and only if they are able to manage themselves with causing disputes that consume community time. NE Ent 02:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked several times but I got no answer, are there prizes? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only prizes are Barnstar-like awards. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I heard something about Amazon Vouchers before. I was going to say they shouldn't have prizes. Not having actual prizes makes it even harder to believe how editors get so torn up about it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I once tried to get them to give out T shirts ("I entered Wikicup and all I got was this stupid T shirt") but no luck. Some other language Wikis have similar contests that do give out prizes, so you could try improving your German. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stub contest gave away Amazon vouchers to the winners, I guess that's what you were thinking of. Sam Walton (talk) 08:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abolish the Wikicup, per NE Ent. It has become way too ugly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page: "The 2015 WikiCup began on January 1" So, doing anything now besides either just living with the rules or scrapping the whole thing is bad form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people are this angry about the most trivial details of an already-niche contest brings to mind a certain bike shed. It's a game, people. You do it for fun. It's not nuclear science and the fate of the world doesn't rest on how many points a picture gets versus a GA. If the game isn't fun anymore because you find the rules so horrible? Don't play it. If you philosophically disagree with the idea of the game? Don't play it. If you want it done differently than everyone else? Fork to an alternative contest or, you know, just don't play this year. If both sides are seriously so entrenched that "just don't play" doesn't seem like a viable option, then what's left to you is either to ask for topic bans to keep disruptive non-players out, or to disband the contest because it's not fun for anyone anymore. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least for me, the issue isn't so much the changes implemented (I don't normally work on FPs), but rather that consensus appears to have been ignored. WikiCup may be just for fun, but ignoring consensus anywhere is a serious problem, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only good solution to the problem of ignoring the consensus that came out of those discussions IMO is to make sure the same judges don't judge next year. The competition's already started, changing the rules would = chaos. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the rules have already changed once when it was pointed out that not only was the one FP per article idea a bad idea, it was also completely and totally unworkable and unthought through. There can't be a block on changing rules when the rules are already changing. If they didn't want rules changed during the competition, they should have put them up a month ahead of time. A lack of planning on their part does not mean that they should be allowed to destroy the competition. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't suppose it would be nice to ban or abolish a process that exists ostensibly to improve the content, this is a little too close to the funny little clubs that sprung up on Wikipedia around ten years ago, which I recall we had to kill with fire in the end. Meanwhile I suggest that the best survival strategy may be to avoid cluttering up Wikipedia noticeboards and trying to get administrator attention by advertising your internal squabbles. Either quietly improve the encyclopaedia in a harmonious way, or start the countdown to extinction. --TS 03:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. WikiCup is straight up social networking dressed up as Serious Editing Business, but the costume is no longer fooling people. The noticeboards should not be expected to waste time helping gamers sort out their personal disputes over who gets a meaningless site trophy. Townlake (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Fluffernutter, it's a game, it's for fun. Consensus is not required. Proposed changes should be addressed to the organizers for action in November 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is consensus not required for anything content-related on Wikipedia? There were some places where they tried instituting such a system... and the leaders were called dictators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wind this up, per NE Ent. Such an organisation as this has no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, there is no need discussion consensus for a project that shouldn't be competitive, either agree with the organisers or the project should be scrapped for being disruptive. Avono (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiCup serves as a powerful motivator to content contributors, and has encouraged the improvement of, and creation of, a wide range of content on the encyclopaedia. If people do not agree with such a competition, or the rules within it, then they are not required to participate in it. The disputes around the subject would not have existed if some editors didn't stir the pot. Last year's disputes, and this current one, would not have occurred if editors did not value competition above collaboration. Yet again, this is shown on the WikiCup talk page, with one editor making a storm in a teacup because the rules happen to be less in their favour this year. The rules often change significantly, so competitors need to take the rough with the smooth, or else, as Fluffernutter suggested, find a different competition or start their own. The competition element of the WikiCup acts as a motivator, and when combined with Wikipedia's goals of collaboration, should result in the improvement of the encyclopaedia. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe trouble-makers can be banned from the WikiCup, or maybe I'm insane. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The judges exhibited extremely poor judgement in unilaterally changing the rules. All three are experienced with the cup, and I remember Sturm participated in the discussion which led to the consensus. They know how hot the issue was, and yet they still chose to ignore what hard-fought consensus there was. This does not bode well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing two types of comments here: comments from people who seem to be involved in the cup complaining about these actions, and comments from people who don't seem to be involved trying to indicate to them that they don't see this as a serious concern and if they don't like it they should just not play. Unfortunately the cup participants seem to not be receptive to that message.
What seems to be getting lost here is this simple fact: to users who do not particpate in the cup (i.e. the vast majority of users overall) this is a complete non-issue. The reason no admins are jumping in to assist with a review of these actions is that this is not a good use of admin time. While it is a content-based contest, its rules do not directly impact content. Content is kind of the point of this whole endeavor, not winning a contest that gives you an award to display on your user page. Both Fluffernutter and Townlake make excellent points about this. If you don't like it, don't play it. The rest of us are not really concerned with rule changes to this sideshow. If it keep causing disruption outside of its own areas, prepare to see it go away altogether.
We could close this thread right now or leave it open for another month and none of these facts would change. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Also, you left out the third type, me, the involved user that doesn't care and agrees with Fluffy and Townlake. I say if you don't like it, don't participate in it. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Block evasion of BLP violator User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm~~

Duplicated report. Dealt with at ANI Nthep (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

László Vazulvonal of Stockholm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked on 02:50, 1 January 2015 for disruptive editing, but this editor is evading his block by using the static IP 213.114.147.52. The IP 213.114.147.52 was blocked in the past: [13] also for being "László Vazulvonal of Stockholm editing logged out" . He is adding unsourced infromation to biograhies of living people (e.g, [14]) 178.168.28.105 (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment this post was removed by 188.131.35.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [15] Avono (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Misuse of administrative tools by User:Kww~~
Yesterday I was blocked for 72 hours by User:Kww. The reason given was "block evasion". However, I was not subject to any block that I could have been evading. In addition, User:Kww undid some 61 of my edits which represented a considerable investment of time and energy [16]. The mass revert restored spelling mistakes, grammar errors and such egregious POV to articles as "a fitting climax to a glorious year for Ferrari" to the articles concerned. Kww has not explained which block he thought I was evading; I believe he was fully aware that there was no such block. I think that blocking someone for a spurious reason and then destroying hours of their work is very poor behaviour from an administrator. I am posting this here because I think this behaviour should be brought to wider attention. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

Background

Part 2 close review

Discuss part 2 close review

Part 1 close review

Discuss part 1 close review

Could use some help... thread reopened

Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering

Further Thoughts by Closer

Redirects for ALL emoji flags

Need more admins to monitor GamerGate sanctions

Close review please

Need ban reversal

Request rather urgent move of pages and correction of associated log entries

Legal threat

Subverting in article Kim Tae-hyung (1995)

Admin needed to make fix

Topic ban proposal for Royroydeb

Ban Block appeal

Appeal

Discussion

Requesting consensus review/input on dispute at WP:WikiCup

Block evasion of BLP violator User:László_Vazulvonal_of_Stockholm

Misuse of administrative tools by User:Kww