Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo#RfC Should Muzaka and Jonima be included in the infobox?

(Initiated 164 days ago on 7 November 2023) I mistakenly assumed an admin would automatically closure the RfC, so that's why the discussion has turned old. However, it stills needs a final result. Latest comment: 87 days ago and 16 editors involved in the discussion. --Azor (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 117 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#RFC

(Initiated 65 days ago on 14 February 2024) First time I've ever requested a close, please lmk if done wrong. Think conversation has slowed and it's been a while since it started. toobigtokale (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I closes

(Initiated 65 days ago on 15 February 2024) As the first round of Phase I reaches 30 days in action, I'll be listing discussions here as they reach time. Once the final discussion has been closed, this heading can be archived. Proposals ripe for closing:

• Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA, initiated at 02:19 (UTC) on 15 February 2024
• Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial), initiated at 03:00 (UTC) on 20 February 2024
• Proposal 4: Prohibit threaded discussion (trial), initiated at 11:33 (UTC) on 18 February 2024
• Proposal 12c: Lower the high end of the bureaucrats' discretionary zone from 75% to 70%, initiated on 1 March 2024
• Proposal 13: Admin elections, initiated at 05:53 (UTC) on 23 February 2024
• Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements, initiated on 23 February 2024
• Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions, initiated on 17:56 (UTC) on 27 February 2024
• Proposal 24: Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process, initiated on 1 March 2024

Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I've closed 3b and 7. I believe 13 and 14 are also overdue now too. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Nearly every proposal can now be closed. Soni (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

and I think now any and all can be closed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

4 was closed User:Wehwalt. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Interstate 90#RFC: Infobox junctions

(Initiated 50 days ago on 29 February 2024) Discussion is about to expire and will need closure. RoadFan294857 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfC: enacting X3

(Initiated 43 days ago on 7 March 2024) SilverLocust 💬 22:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Paul_Atreides#RfC_on_the_infobox_image

(Initiated 41 days ago on 9 March 2024) Trying this one again. Latest comment: 3 days ago, 98 comments, 21 people in discussion. Admins are involved, vigorous WP:NFCC discussion. Closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this; I was about to do so myself. The consensus seems pretty clear, but given this is a copyright issue I think a formal close is beneficial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Jonathan Glazer#RfC: The Zone of Interest section of article

(Initiated 32 days ago on 19 March 2024) Legobot has removed the RfC template. TarnishedPath^talk 11:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath:  Not done: not all discussions require a formal close. In this case, the consensus is obviously yes, so anyone should feel free to just go do it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixing ping. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727, ok I wasn't sure given that even though the !votes were all the same there was dissent in the discussion. I'll close myself. Thanks. TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Well, with a question as vague as "should this be trimmed," there's always going to be some variegation over the minutiae. Nevertheless, there was a clear consensus that it should be trimmed, and indeed it was trimmed partway through the discussion. If there are still questions over specific details of how that was implemented, another discussion can be had about those details. Otherwise, no closure is necessary at all; you can consider it to already have reached its natural conclusion and leave it there. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries. TarnishedPath^talk 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Fani Willis#RfC: Nathan Wade relationship

(Initiated 31 days ago on 19 March 2024) Legobot has removed the RfC template. TarnishedPath^talk 06:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 17:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship#RfC on IFT-3

(Initiated 29 days ago on 21 March 2024) This is a contentious issue with accusations of tendentious editing, so the RfC would benefit from a formal closure. Redraiderengineer (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Talk:StoneToss#RfC:_Exclusion_of_StoneToss's_website_from_the_article

(Initiated 25 days ago on 25 March 2024) Has been running for 10 days but discussion has slowed down considerably recently. Contentious topic, so requesting formal closure here. — Czello ^(music) 12:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Is the OCB RS?

(Initiated 25 days ago on 26 March 2024) This WP:RSN RfC was initiated on March 26, with the last !vote occurring on March 28. Ten editors participated in the discussion and, without prejudicing the close one way or the other, I believe a closer may discover a clear consensus emerged. It was bot-archived without closure on April 4 due to lack of recent activity. Chetsford (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:StoneToss#RfC: Should the revelation of StoneToss's identity be referred to as doxxing?

(Initiated 23 days ago on 27 March 2024) Discussion has slowed. 6 days since last vote. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 February 2024) Would like an assessment of consensus, or a relist if consensus is still unclear. Awesome Aasim 00:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done voorts (talk/contributions) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	5	32	37
TfD	0	0	0	7	7
MfD	0	0	0	1	1
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	0	30	30
AfD	0	0	0	5	5

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 March 17#Template:Officially used writing systems in India

(Initiated 34 days ago on 17 March 2024) Frietjes (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

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

(Initiated 105 days ago on 6 January 2024) The discussion wasn't inactive for 7 days. It seems there's no clear consensus on merging those two articles into one. 107.185.128.255 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Charles_XI_of_Sweden#Requested_move_13_January_2024

(Initiated 97 days ago on 13 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 2601:249:9301:D570:9012:4870:54CD:5F95 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Frederik_IX_of_Denmark#Requested_move_15_January_2024

(Initiated 95 days ago on 15 January 2024) – Requested move open for 2 months, needs closure.98.228.137.44 (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 86 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 80 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2003_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Nora_(2003)_into_2003_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 80 days ago on 30 January 2024) Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 74 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David_III_of_Tao#Requested_move_9_February_2024

(Initiated 71 days ago on 9 February 2024) – Requested move open for nearly 2 months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Amytis_of_Babylon#Requested_move_12_February_2024

(Initiated 67 days ago on 12 February 2024) – Requested move open for several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2 World Trade Center#Split proposal 16 February 2024

(Initiated 63 days ago on 16 February 2024) Split discussion started over a month ago. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Tupelo_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_17_February_2024

(Initiated 62 days ago on 17 February 2024) – Requested move open for over a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Isabella_II#Requested_move_18_February_2024

(Initiated 61 days ago on 18 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:South_Western_Railway_(train_operating_company)#Requested_move_25_February_2024

(Initiated 54 days ago on 25 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Vyaz_(Cyrillic_calligraphy)#Requested_move_26_February_2024

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Edward_V_of_England#Requested_move_29_February_2024

(Initiated 50 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Shukan_Shincho#Requested_move_29_February_2024

(Initiated 50 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open several months, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Lusitania#Requested_move_29_February_2024

(Initiated 50 days ago on 29 February 2024) – Requested move open for a month, needs closure. Natg 19 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals) closures needed

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Closed the Account creation one also, changed timestamp to today. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, DQ, for closing and summarizing this lengthy debate. Cunard (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bugzilla request to enact the consensus found in this closure

Would an admin or editor who is experienced with Bugzilla file a request to enact the consensus found in this closure? Please provide a link to the Bugzilla request at the Village Pump as a postscript to DQ's closure. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence

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

---

Extended content

This RfC close review should be closed seven days after the first timestamp: 06:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC) Category:Anti-abortion violence (talk|edit|history|logs|links) (NPOVN|RfC) Mike Selinker (talk · contribs)'s closure of Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory as do not subcategorize Category talk:Anti-abortion violence to Category:Christian terrorism was contested by Roscelese (talk · contribs). Note: They agreed to bring the closure to the administrators' noticeboard for community review using the following review format (adapted from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions#Commenting in a deletion review): In the RfC closure review discussion, users should opt to: Endorse the original closing decision to disallow subcategorizing; or Reopen the RfC for further discussion; or Overturn the original decision and allow subcategorizing. Remember that the closure review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate. Admins and non-admins are allowed to participate in this review process. After seven days of discussion, this RfC review will be assessed by an uninvolved admin. If the closing admin determines that there is no consensus to overturn the closure, it is endorsed by default. Nomination statement While I appreciate Mike's stepping up to close an RFC that had been languishing for a while, I do not believe that his close was a correct reading of the discussion, even taking into account previous discussion at NPOVN. It's generally acknowledged that the role of a closing admin is not merely to count heads, and that a close must also take into account the strength and policy basis of arguments presented. In this discussion, we saw: four "categorize" editors who all pointed out that many reliable sources categorize the topic this way. a "don't categorize" editor who claimed that he had many sources which said it was not Christian terrorism, but refused to provide even a single source after being asked to do so repeatedly. a commenting editor who said that there might be anti-abortion terrorists of other religions that are not mentioned in any sources. a "don't categorize" editor who argued that domestic violence and government penalties for abortion, unlike anti-abortion terrorism, were not always religiously motivated - never mind that the article does not cover either of those things and that there will never, ever be consensus to conflate the three topics - and subsequently explained that he opposed the categorization because he believes it is wrong for pro-choice activists to say that anti-abortion activists are trying to press their religion on others. a "don't categorize" editor whose (incorrect) argument was that the topic was not mentioned in the Christian terrorism article. a "don't categorize" editor whose argument was that clinic protesters have many different motivations and that Islam, unlike Christianity, is evil. two other "categorize" editors and one more "don't categorize" editor (I'm lazy) several editors whose opinions were ambiguous (eg. requesting sources, but not returning to comment or !vote once said sources were provided) and who should perhaps be asked to clarify, or who otherwise commented without making a clear preference known. Going by numbers alone (and setting aside the ambiguous !votes), there's no consensus, which makes the close iffy to begin with. But looking at the actual arguments, it's clear that most or all of the "do not categorize" !votes are JDLIs that have little to do with the topic and nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, and the closing admin simply failed to weigh these !votes appropriately. One side presented a large number of sources, as consistent with policy, and the other, when it offered relevant arguments at all, engaged in original research about what anti-abortion terrorists might exist without being mentioned in any sources and what might be in their heads in contradiction to sources. And the latter is the argument Mike went along with, writing in his closing rationale that "just because [anti-abortion violence] is primarily perpetrated by [Christians] is not a statement that others cannot join in the act" and "there are many possible reasons to oppose abortion, and many possible reasons to murder," again ignoring the fact that, as the "categorize" side pointed out, reliable sources trump speculations about what's going on in people's brains or about what might happen in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Closer's response: While I appreciate Roscelese's opinion and courtesy, there was more going on here. There is a risk with any highly charged subject that we will make our opinions appear as facts, and the category system is particularly vulnerable to that. In this case, the evidence provided was that many anti-abortion violent acts were perpetrated by Christians. But they were not as clear on the subject that they were motivated by Christianity. For example, if you read the article for Scott Roeder, you will not find much mention of Christianity. You will find that he was a member of the Sovereign Citizen Movement, which is an anti-tax group that was founded by a minister, but it's a massive leap to get from there to "Christianity inspired Roeder to violence." It's not that there isn't association; what we're missing here is one-to-one correspondence and causality. About half the people commenting on these two discussions were uncomfortable with the position currently backed by Roscelese, and so I ruled on the side of not committing to tag the religion with the terrorism label in this broad case. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but if you think that the primary force of the "categorize" argument was that these acts were perpetrated by Christians, you read the discussion even less carefully than I originally thought. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC) I read the discussion plenty carefully, thanks. As I said on my talk page, I hear you, I just don't agree with you.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC) You're reading your own opinion into the discussion. Rather than the "categorize" argument being that Christians perpetrate these acts, the bulk of the argument was that many sources describe this phenomenon as Christian terrorism. It was the "don't categorize" argument which claimed that it is not Christians who perpetrate these acts, but this was refuted both through the aforementioned sources and through pointing out that it is original research to speculate about people's reasons for opposing abortion or the religious identity of people who may bomb abortion clinics at some point in the future. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) I think there's very little to be gained by you and me continually arguing over it. Let's see what other people say.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

At this level of abstraction, we are far removed from considering the actual underlying question (whether Category:Anti-abortion violence should be a subcategory of Category:Christian terrorism). Arguments here that take the form "I (dis)agree with the position taken by the closer therefore it was an (in)correct close" are not relevant. Four of the endorses and one of the overturns below fall into this category. Of the remainder I see four coherent arguments to endorse and four to "overturn", but two of those are actually asking for "reopen". Overall, something of a mess.

The purpose of RfC is to establish consensus, and consensus is found through discussion and collaboration. The five commenters here who expressed opinions related to the RfC topic itself should have done so (and should have had the opportunity to do so) during that original discussion; they would have caused a nearly 50% increase in its level of participation, and probably an increase in its clarity. Faced with a muddled and unclear RfC to close, an admin should be looking to obtain as clear a sense as possible of the underlying consensus of the community. In a relatively low-participation discussion such as that (or this, for that matter) an obvious way to gather more data is to extend and advertise the discussion. There is no value to the project in extending this discussion, we need to get down off our meta pedastal and get back to the coal face where the actual issue is. To benefit the project, the original RfC needs the opportunity for more editors to get involved, and with the prominence this discussion has given it, it stands every chance of doing so. To benefit the project, this discussion needs to get out of its way. Based on the lack of clarity below, the existence of a middle ground position, and a touch of IAR, I'll close this discussion as reopen. And everyone here, including Mike and including me, should get ourselves over to Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory and give the issue that actually affects the project, the attention it deseves. Happy‑melon 15:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• endorse POV pushing by categories. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not the RFC; the discussion is about whether the closing admin read the discussion correctly, not about your own opinion of whether the category belongs. If you want to be able to vote in a currently closed RFC, the solution would be to suggest re-opening it. Then, if it was re-opened, you would be able to provide your opinion on the category, which opinion has no place here. (And when you do, why not produce some sources or make a policy-compliant argument, since the whole point of this review is that the closing admin gave too much weight to non-policy !votes?) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn The categorize arguments were better founded in policy. Binksternet (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• Question Should this RfC close review be advertised at other pages to allow for more independent input? Perhaps this discussion can be linked from Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion and other pages watched by users experienced with categories. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse The closing admin has sufficiently explained the rationale behind his decision. As I understand it, this discussion is not to evaluate the merits of the points raised in the original discussion, but to identify any irregularities in the process and to apply any appropriate remedy. I see no irregularities in the process, nor the decision. The point of contention seems to be a simple disagreement over the outcome. That IMO is not grounds to overturn.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • As already stated, the irregularity in question was that the closing admin completely failed to evaluate the merits of the points raised. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I think you mean "purported" irregularity. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
      • No, I mean irregularity. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Closing admin's rationale is adequate. The admin does appear to have properly evaluated the merits. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The "don't categorize" arguments were poorly supported if not downright laughable, but it seems the RfC will attract more participation now that it has been de-facto advertized here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse Close Use of categorization to make any "point" is a misuse of categories, and the close was correct. Collect (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)n
• Endorse ...and observe (as a newcomer to this subject) that I'm also altogether uncomfortable with the conflation of anti-abortion violence with "terrorism". JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Neither of these address the review rationale. This is not RFC round 2, and your political opinions are yet more irrelevant here than they would be in the RFC; in particular, Collect, you're making the same argument you made earlier, rather than anything to do with the close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
    • • I stated that the close was correct. This board is a very bad place to seek debate points by saying that a person repeated a position, by the way. What counts here specifically is whether editors find the close to be correct, and a strong consensus is required to overturn a close. I fear you have not that consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, I found the following to be quite persuasive...It's not that there isn't association; what we're missing here is one-to-one correspondence and causality. ...and, BTW, editorial judgement, even if arguably independent of WP policy, can trump anything. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per Lionel, who seems to have sussed and succinctly stated the facts. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 17:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• endorse it would be an excessively generalized and contentious classification, that is not compatible with NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn: Maybe I'm reading a different RFC than some of you, but Mike's closure doesn't mention policy anywhere, nor justify why policy-based support votes were devalued in assessing consensus. Mike's response, rather, is his own opinion on the content of the RFC, which effectively makes it a vote, not a proper closure. I have no opinion on the subject, and my reading of the RFC is that the comments in support of categorisation were stronger and better grounded in policy. On a side note, can categories not have multiple parents? If they can, Mike's justification that the category can't have that parent because it might also be categorised under other parents would be invalidated, and the category could simply be parented to all relevant categories. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn for procedural reasons. As with TechnoSymbiosis, I don't see where Mike summarized the results of the RFC anywhere in his closure; he seems to mostly be giving his own opinion. Note that voting for overtuning here doesn't mean I think the closure should have gone the other way; I would have no problem if another admin closed it again in short order, and left a proper summary. Even if (and I am not saying it will happen this way, just noting the possibility that it could) the second closure came out with the same result as the first, we should be careful about dotting our t's and crossing our i's when doing this. A proper closure with a proper summary of the discussion should be done, regardless of the outcome, and even if the second closure reaches the same conclusion as the first. --Jayron32 03:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse looking at the two discussions a valid case was made that A) not all violence in this context is terrorism and B) not all terrorism in this context is Christian. I supported the categorization change but missed the first discussion (linked to above) where valid objections had been raised. Mike's closing correctly reflected the comments made in the NPOV discussion which, as it covered the same topic, quite reasonable to consider here. Hobit (talk) 13:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but when the subcategorize arguments cite reliable sources and the don't subcategorize arguments rely on vague assertions, it seems like the result should be subcategorize. eldamorie (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Close request

Would an admin assess the consensus in this discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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

A copyright loophole...?

I have recently found many images, which should have been tagged F11 - no permission, but because the original author added {{OTRS pending}} at upload time, no one has tagged them at all - obviously thinking that OTRS would be applied soon. Some of them are over 12 months old (it sad that the OTRS template does not show the date of creation). Now it is possible that some OTRS e-mails failed to get through, but the number of authors is surprisingly a rather small subset, and a couple of them have uploaded many images, quoting many different sources, and in all case the OTRS pending has not been replaced. If one was being cynical, one would think that the OTRS pending was just added as a ruse to keep the image. Anyway, I'm busy tagging those that should be tagged - it should spur the authors to ensure their OTRS request has been received.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

it would be trivial to add a date function to the template, I also have the ability to write a bot to auto-tag and date the pending requests. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Since it's the user adding the template, I would guess they would probably forget to add the date parameter - I guess a bot would be a better option.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A missing date parameter could place the page in a special undated category, but perhaps a bot makes more sense. Monty₈₄₅ 02:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We really need to implement a firm standard saying that OTRS pending for more than a specific period of time gets converted into a NPD tag. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How would that work outside file space? Also, when checking to make sure there are actually such transfusions, the first one I checked was 2 years old! Monty₈₄₅ 03:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Any bot would be limited to the file namespace. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at WT:CSD to edit the OTRS pending templates to make them like {{npd}}, except that they would have a one-month lag between tagging and deletion rather than four days. Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Im running a report to see what was tagged when. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

See User:Δ/Sandbox 4 ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Δ. I don't have OTRS access, so there's nothing I can do with these, but I suppose eventually someone with OTRS is going to have to clear them out. As for how long we should let one of those tickets stay in, I would advocate 14 days. Businesses work slowly, so we don't want to cause needless chaos by making it something absurdly short, like 2 days. If it dosen't come in by 2 weeks, it probably ain't coming. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks? Businesses in some parts of the world close for that long over their main holiday period. I know they do here in New Zealand (i.e, Christmas eve to Jan 7th or 14). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks is an unreasonably short period -- the simple OTRS interaction I was involved in took about that long, between correspondance with the copyright holder, explanations of how Wikipedia's licensing system works, and then direct (and indirect) discussions with OTRS, and thst's without any particular complications, dealing with an individual and not a company. I would think that two months would be a better period of time, after which it would reasonable to conclude that no effort was being made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That might be a good timeframe to close a pending OTRS request as inactive, but it's a little excessive for the files themselves considering that a) until the OTRS request is complete we cannot assume that we have permission to use the file and b) in any other case where we don't have permission and aren't claiming fair use the timeframe is a hard seven days. This really needs discussed somewhere other than AN. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The elephant in the living room here is that I don't think it's even appropriate to have images for which permission might be acquired in the first place; let alone keeping it around for weeks or months without that permission! First get permission, then upload. (And, I should point out, {{OTRS pending}} is for that scenario: permission has already been gotten and all that's left is for the email to percolate through OTRS). — Coren ^(talk) 12:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Coren here. Please date these according to upload date, and set it to be categorised for deletion if no permission is noted in 7 days. If there is a request on OTRS, then there is also email contact between uploader and OTRS, and if OTRS does get the paperwork correct, then the original uploader can be re-contacted to re-upload the image before the ticket is closed. It is not like these are non-free images for which the uploader is impossible to contact, and for which no replacement can be found and where the source is unknown etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with just a 7-day time: I've uploaded several images with OTRS permissions, and sometimes it's taken several days to get the permission processed. I'm not excited at the possibility of a relatively small delay in the OTRS process resulting in the deletion of an image for which valid permission has been received. Per Coren's comment — I doubt that any of us think it's appropriate to have such images; the important thing about keeping them around for a specific period of time is that we need to be sure that the OTRS-pending tag is fraudulent. Moreover, if an OTRS agent finds that permission is lacking, s/he could tag the image with {{npd}} without waiting whatever period of time we set. Nyttend (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I know WP:AGF - but now it is just WP:BEANS to upload an image and tag it with 'OTRS approval pending' - and just ignoring to ask for that. There is no need to first upload and then ask for permission in the first place, and secondly, there is no feedback mechanism to see which ones do not pass OTRS. So, and obviously that happens, images stay around 'forever'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Look there are about 118 problem images, some old, some new. They all now have a CSD#F11. I've added a note to the top of every one to ask it be left until 1st December (I think that's fair - some uploader's may not know that their OTRS e-mail has not arrived or not been approved - we should allow them time to sort it out - and they now have a deadline. I've added a similar note to Category:Wikipedia files missing permission as of 31 October 2011 (I tagged them all on same day). Let's not worry too much about these 118 images, some will stay and some will go. Let's move on and firm up what needs to be done for the future - maybe we add a date to the OTRS pending, maybe we insist that OTRS is obtained before uploading. Whatever we do, we need to make sure no one "games the system".  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've not even had a look at the text pages showing on Category:Items pending OTRS confirmation of permission - yet...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 13:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. to my earlier comment - I think I assumed that people would use the loophole, though there will also be images which are in good faith given a wrong tag, and some where the image got tagged, but the uploader in good faith simply forgot to go to OTRS, or where the uploader in good faith did not know what to do next - though seeing that there are only 118 it is indeed not a big issue. Regarding the other items .. I think the same should apply, and for non-file-items, they can always be undeleted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I just logged into OTRS. The permissions-commomns backlog is currently 9 days; the permissions-en backlog is. In recent memory the backlog has been twice as long. I think that 30 days is a fair deadline, with the understanding that it can and should be adjusted based on OTRS' ability and needs. NW (Talk) 14:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We should keep them out of articles until verification of permission is received. What is applied presently is the opposite, as long as I claim to have sent permission I can keep it in the article. Can we change that? I have seen many users upload a copyright violation which if not a speedy sits in the article for seven days and then they add an otrs sent template and by the time its deleted they we have published a copyright violation for at lest three weeks. We could keep such unverified pictures in a holding pen where the pictures are not deleted but not allowed to be published in articles until the permission is verified. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Would it be technically feasible to display an image which said "Image in process" rather than the real image while the verification of permission is processed? Stuartyeates (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• If the OTRS backlog can be more than seven days, then we can set a longer default timeframe. Automatically sending them for deletion at 14 days would be far preferable to letting them hang out for months, and if we know that the permissions group is moving faster, then we can send them for deletion manually at an earlier date. The point behind the automatic deadline is to make sure that we don't exceed it, not to set a guaranteed grace period. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. My only reason for opposing a one-week limit is that good images might be deleted due to backlogs or other human problems/errors; if we were able consistently to process OTRS permission tickets in one day, I'd say that seven days would be excessively long. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

A good image is one that is clearly uploaded with all its copyright and meta data. Others should be kept out of our articles until verified. We don't need a time limit if we don't publish such disputed pictures and keep then out of our articles and in a holding pen - they can stay in the holding pen for six months, seven if you like, but they should not be published by the project while awaiting verification of permission. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

They've still been published in the sense that they're on our servers and lookable-atable. You speak as if the large majority of {{OTRS pending}} templates are instances of abuse; this solution simply is too restrictive of the large number of us who use the template legitimately. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

O2RR, I just uploaded a good image, by your definition, with all its copyright and metadata. However, it's in the OTRS queue, because I needed to document permission from the copyright holder. Why should it be kept out? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I need to agree with Sarek and Nyttend and everyone else. "You can edit this page right now" is a big deal; the fact that your edits show up immediately is a big part of the reward. Explaining the required permissions to the copyright holder, getting the permissions from the copyright holder, uploading an image, and sending the permissions to OTRS, is, in itself a noticeable effort. If we then having to wait an additional 9 days before the image can appear in the article, we don't even get that little reward. Even fewer people will do it. I don't know how many OTRS permission images you've uploaded like that, but I've done a few. It is a pain, let me tell you. The entire Wikipedia is built around the idea that more people will be adding good data than bad, that's why it works. Wikipedia:Assume good faith isn't just a policy, it's a good idea. --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought claim of ownership was more related to evidence of permission than assume good faith, at least that should be the case imo after the copyright ownership is disputed. These are not comments added to articles they are peoples property illegally uploaded with false licenses. I realize the majority of them are ultimately verified but there does appear to be a lot of illegal uploads that sit in our articles for weeks before deletion - some thousands upon thousands of false uploads are still there on commons right now. Personally I remove dubious ones on sight, perhaps we can keep out until verification of ownership is received, any picture thats license is disputed? Off2riorob (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your initial or final sentences. Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I presume that Rob means that any image which is disputed should be removed from articles until the permissions are verified. Black Kite (t) 22:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

That presupposes that any image marked with "OTRS pending" is "disputed", but that's not necessarily the case - in Sarek's example, for instance, there's no dispute, just a process that needs to be worked through. Others are saying that the required process is complex enough that some AGF ought to be applied, at least for a short amount of time -- two weeks was the original suggestion, I brought up 2 months, I believe others have said a month (which doesn't seem unreasonable to me). Certainly, for any editor who is shown to have a history of abusing "OTRS pending", extending GF would be silly and an earlier grace period deadline, or no grace period at all, would make sense. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

as per BK's interpretation of my comment - I was not including OTRS pending, only disputed pics, some OTRS pending pics you look at and as per Sarek's comment, they are totally fine but some are clearly not and I, and others I have seen, still tag them with a request for permission template just to declare that doubt and as an attempt to put a time limit on the OTRS verification. For undisputed OTRS waiting for verification templates I suggest, six weeks after the template is added, if not actioned, a bot note to the OTRS noticeboard and to the user that added the OTRS template so they can also follow it up, that these pics have been waiting an undue length of time for resolution and to please seek out the related email and action asap. - and perhaps if still unactioned, an automatic deletion two weeks after the nudge, eight weeks after the OTRS sent template was added. - Off2riorob (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a sufficient timeframe to work through most issues -- as long as OTRS isn't backlogged for more than two weeks. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] Now tha I understand Off2riorob's ideas better (thanks for the clarification), I agree with them. I was opposing because I thought the idea was to prohibit all images with OTRS-pending templates from appearing in articles. The remove-if-actively-disputed clause is better than I would have thought of by myself, as is the idea of the bot for the noticeboard. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this seems workable to me, and a fair compromise between AGF and protecting the 'pedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Long-open AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azarbaijani Kurds was opened on October 19, and is still open (without having been relisted). This makes me wonder if it were never listed properly, but I don't know what/how/where to check. WOuld someone see if this was listed properly and either close it add the proper listing as appropriate? LadyofShalott 11:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You can check Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Azarbaijani_Kurds, and then you notice that it was only placed on a daily log today and so should stay open for the next seven days (at least). Fram (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

e/c It had never been listed so I listed it for today. GB fan 12:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. LadyofShalott 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

2nd call: remaining closes for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011

We still need a few more closes at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011, which will determine the procedures for the upcoming 2011 ArbCom elections. If any uninvolved admins are available and willing to close the remaining sections in that RfC, it would be appreciated. –MuZemike 02:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is urgent that this be closed now, because if my math is right, the nomination period would have to start tomorrow in order for everything to run full time and be done by Dec. 11th. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm missing something bigtime, but I see that the nomination period as 10 days, the "inbetween" period as 5 days, and the voting period is likely to be 14 days on current consensus. Unless I seriously miscalculated on something, if the figures stay the same as I mentioned, we would have another 9 days. –MuZemike 06:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh my... whoops. I was working on the assumption of a 21 day voting period because I switched the support levels for 21 and 14 in my head. Never mind folks. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Unblock discussion User:Kci357

User:Kci357 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Well over a month ago, Kci357 contacted me asking about an unblock. Since then, I have been in discussion with him, and I did explain that I couldn't simply unblock him, but I did talk to him about what he could do to receive an unblock. In my talking to him, I do believe he is sincere about wanting to contribute constructively if he is unblocked. I have the following points to mention:

1. Kci357 has told me that there will not be any socking.
2. He has promised not to edit-war, and instead, he will discuss in future.
3. He knows that there will be plenty of people watching him if he does slip, and another chance after another block is very, very unlikely.
4. I e-mailed the original blocking admin, Fox, and he is okay with an unblock. However, since Kci357 has had unblock requests declined since then, I've contacted a couple of the admins declining those requests rather than overrule them.
5. There hasn't been any strong agreement with those admins to unblock or keep blocked, so now I'm starting a discussion here, with Kci357 being okay with me doing that.

Personally, I don't see the harm in giving Kci357 a second chance. If he immediately goes back to the behavior that got him blocked, he will just be reblocked, and I will be very disappointed after the all discussion I had with him. If he is unblocked, keeps his promises, and edits constructively, then a positive outcome will have been achieved. Acalamari 10:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Acalamari did contact me, as one of the admins who had declined an unblock. To me, the editor just didn't get it. It was so bad, that his talkpage access was removed. Apparently, it was restored to allow the editor to, in his own words, make his unblock request - which he has not done. Although I WP:AGF, if the editor cannot follow WP:GAB, cannot express his own request sincerely, cannot show that they recognize their behaviours that led to the block (and later talkpage locking), and relies on others to express these things on their behalf, I'm not sure that the editor has either the sincerety nor WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, I would say the odds of this working out are almost zero, and I wouldn't unblock myself. However, in cases where there is no consensus either way among the declining admins, I strongly feel that the default should be to unblock, not leave blocked. I don't see any irreparable harm in deferring to Acalamari's judgement and giving it a try.

  Assuming that the sock tag on his user page is correct (and behavioral evidence leads me to think it is), you should also make it a condition for unblocking that he not abuse the reference desks. Needs to be on his absolute best behavior every edit he makes, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with BWilkins on this. If the user is not sufficiently competent to explain for themselves why they should be unblocked and must resort to doing it by proxy I can't see any benefit to unblocking them. A look at the few edits they have made on their talk page since access was restored re-affirms that feeling. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam says above "I don't see any irreparable harm in deferring to Acalamari's judgement and giving it a try" and that's pretty much how I see it as well. Let's give him a shot, and if it doesn't work out, it's simple enough to reblock. 28bytes (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• • I do accept the concerns here, especially given Kci357's short editing history, talk page, and blocks (I'd have no problem with a condition in an unblock for him to keep away from the reference desks, too). I thought of all that myself, but then I thought again that in cases like this, the unblocked editor is always watched, and with one wrong move they're blocked again. It goes without saying that I'll be someone watching him.
  • As for Kci357 not requesting the unblock himself, he contacted me just before the time his talk page was unblocked, and I think the reason he has not requested anymore unblocks is because of him discussing his block with me (I also told him that I would do the contacting, as I have done). If anything, I consider it a good thing he hasn't posted more unblocks, but that's just me.
  • Assuming he is unblocked, it would be very embarrassing for me and an error to have helped if Kci357 did get himself reblocked, but again, I'm hoping he won't do that. Acalamari 17:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

@Acalamari: giving an editor a chance is a worthy goal, and should not result in your embarrassment no matter the outcome. There is just no way to get a realistic vibe from someone typing. It's hard enough to do it in person and humans are much better at that than constrained mediums like this.

I say unblock him, and reblock on the first significant violation. Lesser violations like etiquette and guideline confusion can be ignored or for any interested editor to educate. He has been warned adequately. It should be quickly apparent if he will be a benefit to Wikipedia or a time waster. —EncMstr (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Unarchiving as this was archived without resolution. 28bytes (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock on the basis of a rope.

• If he is found socking, then a week-long block should do; if a second sock is later found, indef block.
• If he engages in an edit war, he will be warned the first time, but blocked immediately for a short duration the second time.
• If unblocked, they must display competence and cooperate. If a similar situation arises again, instant-indef block.

HurricaneFan25 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't quite agree to that pattern of blocking. A new sock? Indef, done, finit. Edit-warring would typically continue a pattern of escalation, as required. It's admin's reading of the situation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I received this message

This message came up whilst I was editing a page: "Hello! Due to your recent edit war on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, Aaron Muszalski, an administrator here on Wikipedia, has flagged your account for one more chance. Your edit below was not saved, but will be saved if you use the "Save Page" button again; if you think your edit may be against Wikipedia policy, please re-think your actions. Wikipedia always welcomes constructive contributions, but we are required to block your access to editing if you violate policy. You may back out of this page without saving your edit by clicking here. Thanks, Aaron Muszalski (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I've never edited any of the pages listed and certainly I am not involved in an edit war of any kind, let alone these subjects. I clicked to Aaron Muszalski's talk page and user page to leave a message, but I am confused by what I found there. Is this just some spam message and not a real administrator? It would be nice to know. TVArchivistUK (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I was going to write virtually the same thing. Any idea what that was about? Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like an edit filter gone wrong. –xeno^talk 19:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See this for an explanation. HurricaneFan25 19:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandal account, username

Immashootu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This shouldn't happen. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like they were already blocked. Also, the best place for reporting this would be WP:AIV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also blocked: Immakeelu (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 22:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Help urgently needed on unblock-en-l - barnstars available

Who wants to earn some barnstars?

The unblock request mailing list, unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org , is around for blocked users to appeal blocks when they do not know how or are unable to do so on-wiki. Unfortunately, and despite the fact that there are over 100 people subscribed to this list and receiving email from it, I am handling the vast majority of the requests this list receives completely by myself. It's been this way for a few weeks, before which User:DeltaQuad was the only one actively reviewing appeals. In short, we really really really need some help!

If you are not subscribed to this list and would like to assist with reviewing block appeals, please go to https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/unblock-en-l and sign up. Why should you do so? Many of the people emailing us are trying to edit Wikipedia for the first time, but are unable to due to a rangeblock or autoblock on their IP address. By reviewing these appeals in a timely manner, you're helping new editors get started on Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's an added incentive for you...

For the remainder of the month of November, I am offering an Admin's Barnstar to anyone who handles at least 15 appeals send to this list. It may sound like a lot, but this list often receives more than a dozen appeals each day, so you're sure to get there quickly if you check your email regularly. Furthermore, the three admins other than myself who respond to the most appeals for the remainder of November will receive Bronze, Silver, and Gold Wiki Awards for their exceptional service. Fine print follows my signature.

If you want to help but aren't sure how, don't worry - subscribe and stick around for a bit. You'll find a lot of the emails we send are boilerplate text that you can copy from previous responses and then edit as needed. So sign up and help today! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fine print: In order to receive credit towards either award, any response you send must be cc'd to the unblock mailing list per standard procedure. Each admin may only get credit once per appealing user; i.e., if you respond to an appeal asking for more information, you don't get credit for two appeals by responding again when they user sends the information you need. Also, except where replies are sent within a few minutes of each other, only the first admin to respond to a given stage of an appeal gets credit; i.e., if Admin A responds to a user's request, then Admin B sends another response an hour later, only Admin A is going to get credit because it had already been dealt with. List-only emails do not receive credit. You receive credit just for sending a useful response; you need not unblock (or decline to unblock) a user. Currently subscribed users are also eligible provided they actually start helping like DQ and I have been asking them to do for weeks :-P.