Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) at 11:01, 5 January 2013 (→‎Response to Hex by O'Dea: Inserted for context.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      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.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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}} oder {{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

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Steven van de Velde#RfC regarding the inclusion of the "convicted child sex offender" in first sentence

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 26 June 2024) RFC has elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V May Jun Jul Aug Total
      CfD 0 1 10 0 11
      TfD 0 0 3 0 3
      MfD 0 0 3 0 3
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 76 0 76
      AfD 0 0 1 0 1

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

      (Initiated 248 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Community ban proposal for "Tailsman67"

      There has been discussion on AN/I regarding the latest issue with User:Tailsman67. This user was previously indef blocked for disruption and was considered de facto banned but was later given some rope and allowed back briefly before being idef blocked again. Currently, they have been harassing User:Sergecross73 and block evading via several IPs leading to several range blocks being imposed to deal with him as well as generally disruptive edits on various AFDs and articles. There was a consensus for a formal community ban proposal to be discussed here. For those who haven't been following the drama surrounding this user, please refer to Salvidrim's summary here as well as the ANI linked above. I'm posting this here as I made the initial suggestion for a community ban proposal of this user. Also included for discussion would be whether Tailsman67's latest activity warrants yet another range block. I'll notify the user on their most recently used IP and cross posting to the ANI. Blackmane (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Ah yes, thanks for fixing those. It was doing my head in trying to work that bit out and trying to do so late at night after a couple of beers wasn't the wisest idea. I believe the range blocks were 6 month blocks. Blackmane (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct. The longest rangeblock was for 6 months. Salvidrim! 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well you can't say I never tried to help this place but since it's almost the end of the month,oh bye,wait what happens if I see vandalism?Well it doesn't matter if I get banned,all I want you to know is that I tried,thank you Salv for giving me a chance,thanks Serge for helping me out,giving me pointers,and sorry AniMate for not being good enough.98.71.62.112 (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (Responding assuming that the above IP is Tailsman67 again) If you become banned, as the above appears likely to do, then you are banned. You should not edit the project for *any* reason. You're likely best off not reading the project either, to avoid temptation. If you see vandalism, you do not get a pass to fix it. Banned is banned. You will be banned from making any edits, helpful or otherwise. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay see you in later unless i get ban,then see you never.But can someone tell me what the mean of disruptive editor means,I keep thinking it means an editor who is unneeded.98.71.62.112 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, if you're blocked, you're already not supposed to be editing as the block applies to a person. A WP:BAN means you've been a disruptive editor after the block as well. It doesn't mean someone who is "un-needed", more like "someone who continuously fails to follow the rules and policies of the site in a manner that make more and more people do more and more work to correct the problems caused by said person" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Support - I agreed with the others; We don't need people like him here. Apparently judging from Salvidrim's special page, Talisman67 appears to have a hard-on for his and Sergecross73's edits and makes things hell for them. Banned is indeed banned, you are to be excommunicated and be made a nonperson for all I care. --Eaglestorm (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Banning isn't likely going to make him or her go away. Anyway, I've always opposed banning because the user will most likely go into sock puppets. --Hinata talk 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you read up on this very closely? This user has never had an account, he's always IP-hopping. His entire time here can be classified as a giant case of sockpuppetry (or IP hopping at least), so the fear that it will "most likely go into sock puppets" doesn't make any sense. I can't find the dif anymore, but he has told me before that the only reason he doesn't create an account is because he feels he can avoid any sort of indef block/ban if he never commits to a Username, but instead IP hops. Do you want to reinforce this line of thinking? Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I still fail to see him or her banned when he already cannot edit on his or her account. I always thought banning was useless because Wikipedia has limitations of understanding who really is who when IP addresses can change, bans are generally ineffective. In fact, it probably makes them to vandalize more in my opinion. --Hinata talk 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It'd be helpful because it would greatly cut down on the time wasted on his antics. Right now, he shows himself, and then we have to wait until there's 3 or 4 instances of being disruptive, take notes, and present it to an Admin or ANI, and wait for a response/reaction/block. With a ban in place, we can cut straight straight to the chase and block him on sight. No more wasting of the time of constructive editors such as myself. After 7+ cycles of doing this, it's getting rather tiresome, especially when you see it unfold the same way every time. I'm tired of so much babysitting and cleanup. I want to work on content creation, or more pressing Admin stuff, but I can't because every time I turn around he's leaving ludicrous advice on a talk page, saying something nonsensical at an AFD I'm participating in, or making a terrible, sloppy edit on an article I'm trying clean up. Sergecross73 msg me 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The user has no account. Always different IPs. The ban would greatly reduce time-wasting by making revert-and-block-on-sight unquestionably and swiftly enforceable. The other option would be long-term rangeblocks on his three ranges but I believe that has a higher risk of collateral damage. Salvidrim! 09:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I am in full support of blocking this user indefinitely in order to save the obviously large and tedious amount of effort that has gone into reverting this user's malicious behavior. However, I am not in full support of indefinite IP blocks. Back when I was editing on public computers anonymously, I found it very difficult to edit, as many of my school's computer IP's had been blocked as the result of similar malicious behavior. I understand that he or she is a major problem, but if in fact this user is using public computers (especially at a school, college, university, etc.) it can have the potential of having other indirect consequences. So I propose that, instead of indef blocking all of the IP's, indef block the more-frequently used IP's, and put a range-block on the rest. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 17:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • A ban wouldn't be indef blocking all his IPs or anything, he just wouldn't be alowed to edit, and it would just give us the ability to block him on the spot as soon as we figure out it's him. (Which usually doesn't take long, he typically makes people plenty aware, and even if he didn't, has a certain style of sloppy writing that is easy to identify.) Anyways, I'm pretty sure 1) IP blocks are rarely are indef ones, for the reasons you just explained, and 2) I don't think we'd really even need to go back and block any of the "old" ones, he rarely revisits old IPs. (He described why once. I think it was something along the lines that his Firefox browser had a random IP generator/change thing, and once it changed, he couldn't really go back to the old ones anymore. Or something along those lines.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, he has no account and had never revisited a previously used IP. The proposal is that the ban could be enforced by, for example, 30-day blocks for any IP he is found using, revert all contribs as per WP:BAN, and do something else until next time, which will be a different IP. Salvidrim! 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - User is already defacto banned. Just tag the account banned. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • We wanted something more formal. Even the Admin who declared the De Facto ban, Animate, recommended doing this, and !voted "Support", so I'm not sure I understand you when you say "Oppose"... Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bans are a waste of time. Also, we should be more welcoming and willing to work with people who don't always agree on everything. Perhaps mentorship is preferable. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 22:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • We've already tried that. He's been around for well over a year, where he has been given many opportunities. After his 6 month block expired, a few months ago, I gave him one last shot and tried to help him, and he just resorted back to his old ways. That's why we're back at ANI/AN regarding him. The problem isn't about "agreeing on things", it's about his lack of willingness, or ability, to comprehend what the most very basic concepts of Wikipedia are. "Disagreements" aren't an issue; as far as I can remember, consensus has been against him literally every time. It's that I'm tired of all the warnings, cleanup, and babysitting. Your comments show you've done little to nothing to understand this particular situation. Sergecross73 msg me 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that you oppose here because you believe the user is already banned, which isn't correct, since no community consensus supports that (before this discussion)? I'd like to know, regardless of AniMate's declaration months ago (but in light of his Support here, as well as that of others), if you believe the user is constructive to the project? Over a year of welcoming and mentorship failed to change anything in the user's behaviour. Salvidrim! 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused by your comment -- there is no current block I am aware of. Salvidrim! 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's not currently blocked, and even if he was, I don't understand what you'd be getting at for this, why this would support your stance. (Quite frankly, if you hadn't written "Oppose" at the beginning of your first comment, I wouldn't even understand your stance at all. Your comments are all over the place. Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Help needed in making community ban official

      So, there seems to be a lot going on here at AN today, so I understand if this isn't first priority, but I just wanted to point out that it seems like discussion is winding down, and there's unanimous support for a community ban for Tailsman67 and all of his IPs. I'm just requesting help with finalizing this, partially because I've never done that aspect of of things before, and partially because of being "involved". Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Uninvolved administrator needed

      The above discussion has been open for over a week. A closing by an uninvolved administrator would be appreciated. AniMate 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Assuming this uninvolved admin is going to declare a consensus in favor of a ban, what account would they be banning? This one in Salvidrim's user space? That seems very odd to this not-so-experienced admin; is there precedent for that?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is no account, otherwise we could indef-block the master and report IP-socking. We are seeking a social ban of the user behind the edits so that further appearances and edits can be reverted and blocked on sight without need for reports and discussions every time, so as to limit time wasted. I honestly have no idea if there is precedent or not of an issue similar to this. As mentionned, the user was considered de facto banned for a while, but it seemed that declaration wasn't solid enough and we are seeking community confirmation of the banned status of the user. Salvidrim! 02:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Bbn23 - This is how I closed a similar situation for a person who goes by the name Peter Judge.--v/r - TP 03:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Even if there were an account, a community ban is different from an indefinite block. I'm just reluctant to slap a tag on a page in your user space to ban what appears to be a collection of IP addresses. Perhaps I'm overly cautious, but without more assurance, I'd rather let another admin do it. In any event, I'm about to go off-wiki until tomorrow morning (all this discussion of banning has made me hungry), so I'll check in then to see if someone else stepped in. Added after ec: Thanks, TP, I'll still check in tomorrow morning if this is still outstanding. I don't want to do it quickly now and screw it up.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the insight, TP, it intends seems to be a similar situation. Salvidrim! 03:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      O'Dea's block by Hex

      The block and the issues surrounding it, including people's conduct in this thread, have been moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request to desysop Hex. Please take any further comments there. Bishonen | talk 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

      Unarchived. I'm removing the archive template, leaving Fluffernutter's archive text below:

      This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Archiving is for when discussion is petering out, not for when it's ongoing but somebody thinks people should "go back to their corners". This isn't a lot like the boxing match the "corners" metaphor implies, anyway, since the parties are unequally matched (=one has a block button). (I'm planning to write something below very soon.) Bishonen | talk 15:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

      I've just undid Hex's block on O'Dea - I see no reason to block and all the reasons to unblock. Didn't contact the blocking admin because with all these negotiations the block might expire and even though it's short this doesn't make it less outrageous. Max Semenik (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Oh no, not again. What is it with admins rushing to unblock without discussion - always a poor move.--Scott Mac 23:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The block was blatantly incorrect, and unblocking was obviously the right thing to do. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Posting here and getting a second opinion first would have been better. That's all I'm saying. If the block is plainly bad, a couple of others will endorse you and then you are not imposing your judgment over that of the blocking admin. If blocks can be bad judgement (and they can) so can unblocks.--Scott Mac 23:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jaw-droppingly bad blocks like this one are best immediately reversed, and discussed later. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, but... The problem is that one admin's "Jaw-droppingly bad block" isn't another's. With a bad block the blocker has made a bad judgement call - however, humility tells me that when I judge it as such, it is entirely possible I've missed something, or indeed that others would say my judement is bad. So, unless we want one admin simply overriding the judement of another, it is best to take 5 min and come here for a sanity check. If it is obviously bad, you'll get your unblock call endorsed immediately. Much less dramatic than risking the lone gunman stuff.--Scott Mac 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          Yeah in general it might be best to come somewhere like here and get a second opinion before undoing a block, but this kind of situation is definitely the exception. This is why WHEEL is worded the way it is, I think. There are cases—like this—where we want the damage from really poor administrative actions to be minimized as much as is possible. It was probably pretty obvious to MaxSem that if the unblock was the wrong move then O'dea was not going to do anything too harmful during the short period of time it would have taken ANI here to come to a consensus to reinstate the block. I think this unblock was the right move, even before coming here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) I don't think that this was quite an "abuse of admin tools", but a block for not using edit summaries is clearly unjustified given that no policy requires them, and many experienced editors chose to not sure them. As such, I think Max did the right thing by lifting this block without delay and reporting the matter here for additional opinions on his and O'Dea's actions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        He hadn't actually "not used edit summaries" - the blocking admin just didn't think one of them was good enough, and blocked when it was pointed out to him that he was wrong about policy. That's abuse in my book. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No. Wrong. You're very poor at reading a situation.
      I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing - I assumed in good faith - the minor edit feature. Advised him of the fact. He responded by blanking his talk page. I checked back later, noticed no change in behavior. Advised him much more strongly that he needed to start using it correctly and that he should not ignore the advice. He blanked it again. Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary, advised O'Dea of that fact and provided - politely - a link to help on how to correctly use the feature. O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with, and leaving a comment with a gibberish edit summary. I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly. O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me.
      I blocked O'Dea for disruptive editing, exhibited by his interactions with me. Not because he didn't use an edit summary. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Your comment prior to blocking was "Keep taking the piss and see what happens" - he wasn't taking the piss, he was pointing out that a) policy does *not* require good edit summaries, and that b) you were not perfect regarding edit summaries yourself. The block looks to me like it was out of spite. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You look wrongly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it was out of spite; sometimes blocks are just bad blocks, and people need to learn from them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see the incivility/PA; none of the comments were severe enough to justify any action. I think it's a matter of interpretation whether this is ok: [1], personally I think it's fine. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I am aware there is no requirement for edit summaries to make sense. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought we stopped even posting stats about edit summary usage on RfA talk pages... Snowolf How can I help? 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Before forming an opinion on this matter, readers should examine in the edit history what actually transpired, and not accept Hex's sanitised version of what he would like you to believe. This was inexcusable bullying followed by punishing the user with a block because he tried to stand up for himself. O'Dea is a committed content builder who had a clean block log. He has far more experience in content building than Hex has. As usual on admin boards, little interest is shown in redressing an assault like this on a valuable content builder. The focus is merely on protecting the sanctity of admins, however bad. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hex, let me tell you about best practice: never block for attacks against yourself. (Of course don't block at all for something as un-attacky as this was, but that's another matter.) There's no rule that says you're not allowed to, but it's best not. And when you see a user post something "clearly intended to anger me", then don't oblige them, for goodness sake! Don't get angry and block in anger! You're supposed to be the bigger man in such exchanges. Not just the man with the big gun. Bishonen | talk 01:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      • Holy cat among the pigeons, Batman! Blocked for repeatedly misusing the minor edit box, something in which virtually no one pays any attention to, by an administrator who was completely, 100% involved? I've seen Hex's name around quite a bit lately and I generally like the guy, but this is a pretty colossal lapse in judgment. I sure hope he has no intention of repeating that kind of mistake again, because it actually does have a bit of a chilling effect on those who don't waste any time worrying about such arbitrary things (like myself). Kurtis (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Response to Hex by O'Dea

      The following are my observations about Hex's comments, above, time-stamped at 23:48, 29 December 2012:

      • Hex: "I noticed a while back that O'Dea was misusing ... the minor edit feature."
      Reply by O'Dea: This is a red herring. Hex did not cite it as a factor in blocking my edits. It is not relevant at all to what he did.
      • "He responded by blanking his talk page."
      It is my talk page. I maintain is as I please. In the past, I used to carefully archive my talk page periodically, but more recently I concluded that it was not worth the effort to me – the amount of talk traffic is normally very low. If I or anyone wants my talk history, it is there in the page history. My present default is to clean my page fairly often, and I will remove the latest conversations on it soon. This is none of Hex's business at all and is not a factor in deciding to block another editor. This is another red herring, and Hex took it upon himself to interpret my neutral page clearing action as an attack upon him, which it was not, as my talk page history shows that I clear it often.
      The WP:OWNTALK and WP:REMOVED policies were explained to Hex by another editor just two months ago and he demonstrated in his reply that he understood them, yet here he is again pretending that he has a hard time understanding policies when he complains that I cleared my talk page. Once again, he is guilty of selective narrative and inconsistency.
      • "Checked back later, found a very poor edit summary."
      This is a feeble attempt to make something out of nothing. Edit summaries are not compulsory, nor is there a threshold quality to be sustained. In short, my edit summaries are no business of Hex's. In any case, anyone with time on his hands who wants to trawl through my edit summary history will find precious little to complain about, and even if such an archaeologist personally despised my edit summaries, there is no binding policy concerning them. There is advice about edit summaries, and I normally summarise my edits and do so fairly meaningfully. My record speaks for itself. Hex threatened me with a block already on only his second visit to my talk page. He likes to increase the pressure rapidly. He said I would be blocked from editing until I could demonstrate that I understood the point he was making. I resisted the temptation to reply to his provocative and bullying talk of blocking with the first thought that struck me which was that, if I was blocked, I would not be able to demonstrate any kind of article editing behaviour at all. But I exercised patience and simply ignored him, and made no reply about the patent absurdity of his logic.
      • "O'Dea responded by grubbing through my edit history to attempt to find something to attack me with".
      This is sour grapes because I found an example of Hex failing to match his own misplaced standards. The word "grubbing" is truly an example of the kind of bad faith that Hex implied was not his style when he lectured me sanctimoniously about good faith on my talk page.
      • "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly."
      This is a self-serving re-interpretation and sanitization of what Hex actually said, which was, "Keep taking the piss and see what happens". That was a direct threat, and one which was expressed in less careful language than Hex is using now that his actions are under scrutiny.
      • "O'Dea responded with an inflammatory comment with another gibberish summary, clearly intended to anger me."
      I invite anyone to read my comment which pointed out Hex's inconsistency and directed him to read the edit summary advice at Wikipedia Help. It is clear from this whole fiasco that he did not understand the official position so my direction to him to read it was germane. I also asked him to cite exactly the transgression he thought I had committed, and I invited him to come back to discuss it. He has chosen to interpret this as "an inflammatory comment" – but that is his problem.
      Leaving aside the flustered grammar, Hex's talk of "commitment to beneficially interacting with the rest of the community" is truly meaningless and irrelevant gobbledygook from a man finding himself embarrassed and in a corner.
      • Hex just blew up because I pointed out his inconsistency in a way he could not wriggle out of, and he further believed, wrongly, that edit summaries are mandatory, and that I was wrong, but he was the one who misunderstood. He also misunderstood how to administer a situation like this one, and misunderstood when, and when not, to block other editors. There are, so far, ten editors who disagree with Hex's actions, on this page and at my talk page. No other editor who has examined the narrative has yet come forward to support Hex's position. I am entitled in the circumstances to repeat my demand that Hex withdraw the lie that I was "taking the piss", as the facts do not support this hostile and self-serving insinuation. — O'Dea (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      TL;DR. Looks like a nice dramatic reading.
      I can spot someone taking the piss from a mile away; it takes far worse than the likes of you to get my gall up. Your mental picture presumably has me howling like a monkey and hurling the keyboard across the room, but unfortunately that wasn't the case. I will admit, however, to momentarily raising an eyebrow and putting down my cup of tea. It's possible that I may have even emitted a small sigh. Anyway, feel free to demand whatever you want. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hex, I think the people assuming you did this out of blind rage are simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. It's hard to imagine anyone fit to be an admin would have made such an awful block without something like the kind of furious, face-reddening anger that makes it hard for one to see straight. Arguing that you were not in a state of rage is not helping you. Arguing that this was the result of careful consideration and the kind of decision you come up with at your best is not helping you. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh dear, O'Dea... please don't expect the courtesy of a reply. Admins do not make errors. You and I are members of the unruly, and we really must be put down or ignored. The mere fact you had the presumption to come to Wikipedia and add content is proof enough that you are uppity. If Hex was one of the unwashed he could be arbitrarily sanctioned (if it amused just one other admin). But he's not, he's in the group that is here to arbitrarily sanction you. More to the point, your thinking on abuse is wrong. You should learn to chant the admin mantra, "the only admin abuse is abuse of admins".
      Many admins are keen on using their own particular idea of "civility" as a weapon for smashing content builders. This is a splendid weapon, almost impossible to challenge, and they have been practicing lately on each other. But it is not a weapon a lowly content editor may use against an admin. It's like the samurai's sword; only the samurai may use it. Hex's behaviour and punishing block may seem a gross breach of civility. It is not, as the non-action on this board will shortly prove. Admin behaviour towards a content builder never lacks civility. Hex may discipline you at his whim. As a content builder you may grovel, but not grizzle.
      The best content builders have left or are leaving, like rats perhaps, since content builders are treated like vermin here. Wikipedia is spiralling in deadly ways as unskillful administrators destabilise it. Hex's hubris, his clear belief he is entitled to behave the way he does, is a symptom of that. In time, if this trend continues, Wikipedia will degenerate into a comic book Conservapedia for the impoverished, with ingratiatingly polite overlords feasting on hapless content builders that mistakenly stumble into its maw. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Having fun, are we? — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      [At this point user:Fluffernutter closed this thread with: "This is going nowhere good, fast. The block has been undone, status quo is back in place. Everyone, please go back to your corners and your work and try to de-escalate what's turned into a multiple personality-conflict pile-up. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" [Inserted for context, Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)][reply]

      • Really? The status quo is not "back in place". A content builder now has an undeserved block log and has been subjected to inappropriate abuse by an admin. Nothing has being done to reasonably redress this. Are you really endorsing this thread, Fluffernutter, as an exemplar of the way admins now handle content builders? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I am endorsing nothing here other than the fact that the thread was turning nasty very quickly and that I personally believe it would be wise for all parties to try to cool down rather than keep hammering away. I can't force you to do that, I can only recommend. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well... as I predicted. there it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment to Hex about their replies in this thread

      Hex, the arrogance of your replies in this thread is terrible, especially the reply to O'Dea above, "TL;DR" and all. (Your block was terrible, too, but I think you've already been told that.) Really, O'Dea responded once, in self-defence after being blocked — unreasonably blocked, if the deafening consensus above is to be believed — and you, the blocking admin, couldn't take the time to read it? The last passage of the essay WP:TL;DR might interest you:

      A common mis-citation of this essay is to ignore the reasoned and actually quite clear arguments and requests for response presented by an unnecessarily wordy editor with a flippant "TL;DR" in an attempt to discredit and refuse to address their strongly-presented ideas and/or their criticism of one's own position. This is a four-fold fallacy: ad hominem, appeal to ridicule, thought-terminating cliché, and simple failure to actually engage in the debate because one is supposedly too pressed for time to bother, the inverted version of proof by verbosity.

      I'll charitably assume you didn't mean the "didn't read" literally, but only as the kind of attempt to discredit which the green quote describes, and a way to express your contempt of "the likes of you" and their "demands" (your italics). If your demeanour is a symptom of burnout, Hex, please consider taking a break, and coming back refreshed. If it represents your actual view of admin responsibilities, I'm sorry to see you're not open to recall. Would you consider standing for a new RFA? Bishonen | talk 15:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

      • I'm really quite shocked the way Hex has responded here. The block reason was "Ignoring repeated administrative requests to properly use the edit summary feature, and responding to same by attempting to needle the admin making the requests", which is essentially for (a) failure to obey a policy that doesn't even exist, and (b) daring to point out the admin's error. In my view, this is clearly abuse of admin tools.

        An admin with integrity would be expected to accept their error and apologise, especially after the unequivocal consensus that Hex was wrong, and that is really what I was expecting to see from Hex here. Instead, we see him digging in and entrenching his unjustifiable position, downplaying what he actually said (vis "I advised him not to be unreasonable as it might be interpreted badly" versus his actual words "Keep taking the piss and see what happens"). And then in response to O'Dea's accurate, justified and clearly presented explanation of what actually happened, we got a condescending and contemptuous "TL;DR" response.

        This is typical of the arrogance of some of the bad old admins who seem to think they have carte blanche to arbitrarily impose their authoritah, and that "ordinary" editors should shut up and not talk back. Judging by this display, Hex is not fit to be an admin, and if we had a more workable route for requesting admin recall, I would be pursuing it. So Hex, as you steadfastly reject what some of your fellow admins here are telling you (and I see none supporting you), I have to join Bishonen in asking if you will stand for a reconfirmation RfA? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      While Bish's and BsZ's identification of an issue is spot on if incomplete -- there's also the drama queen PA on Epipelagic -- the correct remedy is not an unlikely-to-be accepted challenge for a reconfirmation Rfa. I'm not aware of prior screwups by Hex, so I think feedback from AN should be sufficient; if not, RFC/U should be the next step. NE Ent 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Feedback from AN should be sufficient if the editor is willing to accept it, but Hex clearly is not. And if an editor is not willing to listen to valid criticism, the entirely voluntary RFC/U process is an utter waste of time (though I suspect you are right that a request to consider a confirmation RfA will fail, I think we need to suggest that option). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It is unknown whether Hex will accept the feedback here or not; what matters is not whether Hex posts some sort of admission but what actions they take in the the future. Clearly O'Dea has received the support of the community in validating the block was wrong, which is good. Telling Hex they erred and explaining why we think so is good; berating and badgering beyond that is not. See also Editors have pride; although it was written for a different context the underlying concepts apply. NE Ent 19:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      (Regarding pride, Proverbs 16:18 contains sound words - no religious affiliation on my part implied). Hex has actually rejected the feedback here so far, at least at the time of his last comment. Whether he continues to do so is currently unknown, and as Bish suggested, there are (at least) two viable options - Hex really can either accept the feedback and maybe take a break for a while, or he can continue to argue that he was right. If he chooses the latter option, then further action is required, and a reconfirmation RfA to allow the community to decide would seem like a relatively speedy and honorable way to proceed. Given Hex's apparent contempt for the opinions of others so far, I'd welcome your suggestions for a better way to proceed (given that RFC/U is entirely voluntary and cannot work if the editor in question will not consider its validity). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The most viable and least disruptive option is the thread winds down -- the archive bot always get the the last word -- and Hex doesn't make inappropriate blocks in the future. That said, I don't think a shut the discussion up close tag is appropriate here, lest Hex and or other editors decide they have something to say.. NE Ent 20:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As in archived = swept under the carpet? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Give it a rest. If admins are seriously discussing the best way to get a fellow admin desysopped, or eligible for desysopping, there's no need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass. Well, there's never a need to make vague allegations about the cabal covering its own ass, but this is an especially inappropriate case. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Goodness, either you are joking or you radically misunderstand what is happening here. Hex will not respond and the matter will simply be dropped. This is not just some random happenstance. This is how it works here, and why the editors who are best at writing the encyclopedia are increasingly being discarded. Bishonen and Boing! are exemplary admins doing the best they can, and we are lucky we still have admins left of their calibre and humanity. But there are about 700 active admins, and it seems that Bishonen and Boing!, in this thread, are the only ones willing to champion the rights of content editors to some dignity. Wikipedia has already sunk into a destructive pit and become a playground for admins with decidedly other agendas. As a result, the usual default action here will happen, which is no action. Admins generally may be as incivil as they choose towards content editors. It's true that two admins were recently (and absurdly) blocked for incivility, but that was because they were incivil towards another admin, not another content editor.
      Generally the ultimate act of incivility, the most humiliating and hurtful thing to do to a content editor is to block him or her. Worst is the indefinite block, which specifically aims at making the editor grovel. Right now, a move is underway at WP:BLOCK to rewrite the blocking policy so the block noose can be tightened more around the content editors neck. In this thread, an admin who recently achieved celebrity with his terminal block of Malleus Fatuorum, is charging ahead, calling for multiple blocks and the widespread use of indefinite blocks without warnings:
      If I see that someone has been blocked for edit-warring before and I'm thinking about blocking him for edit-warring again, I see no value in warning him again... I'd block a handful of users rather than fully protect a page in nearly all instances... most of the blocks I give in such situations are indefinite.
      Wikipedia's content editors are generally too good for the quality of the admin system. Most content editors have their heads down writing the encyclopedia, and do not realize, or want to realize, what is actually happening here. Anyway, this thread will no doubt be closed now on the grounds that matters like these are irrelevant on an administrators board, as indeed they seem to be. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If this thread goes through to the archive with no acknowledgement from this admin that he has behaved badly, I'll take it to ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I have never entertained the idea that administrators can or should be perfect 100% of the time; however, when administrators take action, they must be open to discussion on those actions. Recently, I came across an administrator who misused some tools. The issue was discussed and resolved, the administrator apologized and assured that the event in question would not occur again. I have no problem with that. In this case, Hex has been unwilling to discuss his actions and accept that the block was incorrect. This is wholly inappropriate for an administrator and a personality trait that isn't suited to the extra tools. I would like to see this go to ArbCom. Ryan Vesey 22:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I've got a decent amount of street cred for supporting the desysopping of admins who have a history of doing this kind of thing, but I think going to ArbCom right away, if we don't get an "acknowledgement", is premature. For one thing, demanding apologies is a mug's game. For another, I really doubt ArbCom would take the case after just this one incident. A better approach is probably to note that if it happens again, it will go to ArbCom, and point to the two recent cases where this type of thing has resulted in a desysop the admins in question ended up leaving due to the threat of a desysop (correction, I had my fact wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)), once it can be shown to be a pattern. This was clearly a bad block, and a really disappointing reaction to universal criticism of it, but I suggest staying focused on the future, and not trying to back Hex into a corner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Others have covered this below but because you are addressing my use of "acknowledgement" I should clarify that I'm not talking about an apology. I'm looking for simple recognition that his behaviour, surrounding the block and the block itself, was unambiguously bad. This is, after all, as far as I can see, the unanimous view of all here. I would certainly like to hear from anyone who thinks it was not bad. Without that acknowledgement, it would be irresponsible to leave him with the bit. We owe it to the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      While an apology would be appreciated, I don't believe in demanding them either; however, I do believe that administrators should be required to discuss any administrative action they take. While this is a volunteer project, I would say there's consensus that taking an administrative action must be accompanied by a willingness to discuss that action otherwise that action should not be taken. Hex failed to respond to O'Dea, responding with a TLDR and saying he could "spot someone taking the piss from a mile away". I understand your point Floq, but this just isn't the type of behavior I want to see from somebody who has the ability to block someone. Luckily, it doesn't appear like Hex uses that tool much. Ryan Vesey 22:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's anything to do with apologies either, it's about trust going forward. And if Hex still believes that what he did was right, despite all the feedback he's getting, then he does not have our trust as an admin - anyone at RfA today who pointed to Hex's recent action and said it was fine would be roasted. It's fine for someone to have a bad day and make a bad call due to stress or other emotion, but we need to see a positive reaction to feedback - not an entrenched insistence that their actions were calm and justified. But in practical terms, if Hex does not respond positively, there's nothing we can do right now - because there is no de-sysop request mechanism that will deal with a case like this. As you say, Floquenbeam, ArbCom will only deal with cases when there are multiple examples of bad behaviour - I think there needs to be a mechanism that will deal with a single but unrepentant example, but there isn't one. So while I flatly reject Epipelagic's accusations that we (as admins) are trying to sweep it under the rug, the current weak system of redress does make it look that way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Where did I generally accuse admins, and you for that matter, of trying to "sweep it under the rug"? I said nothing of the sort. In fact I specifically said that you were an exemplary admin doing the best you can. In rely to NE Ent's wish that nothing should be done and his statement that "the archive bot always get the the last word", I queried "As in archived = swept under the carpet?". Elsewhere I said that the default position is to do nothing. The reality is that that is the defacto position. It doesn't just "look that way", it is that way. Do you think that is incorrect? Why are you taking exception? You attacked me before in a similar manner, and I can only assume you are simmering with some anger you have about my views or attitude (real or imagined). If that is the case then I invite you to ask me about it somewhere so we can see if there is any substance to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies for my misunderstanding. (As for any past interaction between us, I'm afraid I don't remember it, sorry - I have to confess I only vaguely recognise your name) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree; for me the issue isn't so much that there was no apology, it's that Hex still seems to believe this block was remotely reasonable. They're probably related, though, since presumably there is no apology because Hex still believes that this block was fine. As boing points out, there isn't much we as admins can do: threaten to indef Hex if this happens again? Hex isn't in Category:Wikipedia_administrators_open_to_recall so that pretty much just leaves us with ArbCom, and anyone can take this to ArbCom. I'm not quite as sure as others seem to be that arbcom won't take the case; the new panel might be a bit more willing to deal with the perennial complaint that desysopping is too hard... HaugenErik (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I was curious about that. Could the new ArbCom declare that they will entertain requests for desysop? They'd accept or decline in the same manner as normal requests, but there would be fewer hoops to be jumped through before taking it to ArbCom because there aren't other desysop venues to take care of it. Ryan Vesey 23:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, they wouldn't need to make any declarations, would they? They would either accept the case (possibly in response to the complaints about it being too hard to desysop) or they wouldn't (because there aren't "multiple examples of bad behaviour"). ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I hesitate to post this, as I think all I'm about to do is needlessly complicate everyone's life, but... Note that this looks very similar to the current situation. For those of you thinking about ArbCom, this is good news (beginnings of a pattern) and bad news (from November 20092008. (oops)). I'd still be surprised if an ArbCom case was accepted, but no longer think it's impossible. At this point, I'd like confirmation from Hex that he won't block anyone except clear vandals and spammers, something he's been doing without apparent incident for many years. To get me to not care anymore, he doesn't need to agree he's in the wrong, just that he doesn't agree with the Community's opinion, and is therefore going to skip that aspect of adminship. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, so he's done this kind of thing more than once - and he wouldn't accept being told it was a bad block last time either. I'm still not convinced that ArbCom would act on "once every three years" bad admin actions, but it must increase the chance slightly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think I can support that, Floquenbeam. I have very serious concerns about this person's attitude. Unless I see an acknowledgement that his swaggering arrogance and contempt towards O'Dea and his block of O'Dea were unacceptable here, we should relieve him of the bit. As it stands, I can't trust him to deal fairly with borderline spammers and vandals. I don't trust his judgement at all, and it amazes me you're willing to. Can I recommend taking a look at his three RfA's? [2][3][4] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I am just giving my opinion, Anthony, I'm certainly not telling you what to do or what to think, i hope I haven't given that impression. Yes, I just finished looking at the three RFA's (including, in RFA #2, a promise to be open to recall if that RFA passed. but it didn't). Yes, I would have opposed all three. Yes, this incident gives me great pause, and if there was a reconfirmation RFA today with no agreement to stay away from this kind of block, I'd oppose. But there is a lot of good work he's done over the years, including good admin work, and I'm hoping some kind of trajectory other than the SchuminWeb or EncycloPetey cases can be worked out, so that we (Hex, and Wikipedia) don't mutually burn all our bridges. This does appear to be the only area I see problems in; if I could convince myself he won't do that one particular thing anymore, then I would consider his adminhoodness a net positive, and move on to find other more pressing problems more in need of solving. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there a page somewhere that lists the blocks he's made? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Try this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Or, more elegantly as a wikilink: Special:Log/block/Hex. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yes, that's prettier (I just looked at my own and then changed the URL) ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There's this from 23 December 2012. Where Hex blocked Twehringer thesociety (talk · contribs) for an unspecified user name violation, without discussing it first, as the policy recommends. This user name breaches no policy. Username policy says, "

      The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible; see under Usernames implying shared use below. [...] usernames are acceptable if they contain a company or group name but are clearly intended to denote an individual person, such as 'Mark at WidgetsUSA', 'Jack Smith at the XY Foundation", 'WidgetFan87', 'LoveTrammelArt', etc.

      Two inappropriate blocks in ten days. Hex, can you explain the rationale behind this block, and why you didn't discuss it with the editor first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Given the username block and the 2008 block Flo references above I do think we need to hear from Hex or push this to ArbCom. NE Ent 14:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      My thanks to Floquenbeam, who is the only person to have had the common courtesy to alert me by email to the current status of this thread. I happen to be on vacation. My reply will be presented tomorrow. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I alerted you on your talkpage when I un-archived the thread on 29 December 1 January. But if you're not interested enough to enable the "e-mail me when my talkpage is changed" functionality when you go on holiday with something like this pending, then naturally that's somebody else's fault (just like everything else). Bishonen | talk 21:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      Hex edited after Bish's notification so they should have seen the orange message bar. NE Ent 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This just keeps getting worse. KillerChihuahua 05:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Antwort

      I'll start by addressing the two blocks mentioned above.

      1. At the time of the 2008 block I didn't fully understand about avoiding tools when involved in a content dispute. Subsequently, I did. You may also notice that I managed to accidentally pass 3RR on the same occasion. I've not done that since, either.
      2. Looking at it again, the user name block was in fact incorrect. It should have been a spam-only block. Twehringer_thesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s only contributions were to a spam article, The Society of Leadership and Success, an organization that they are the director of communications for.[5] That article itself is, I now notice, a copy of the user space page User:NSLS92617/National Society of Leadership and Success, itself deleted as spam. That user name clearly alludes to the Irvine, California branch of this organization,[6] and is a clear promotional name. I'll let somebody else deal with that. In this case, I evidently managed to conflate two block reasons — one of which I obviously misremembered. I'm not sure that I recollect ever making a user name-based block before, for that matter. I've now corrected the error on the user's talk page.

      Now I'm going to have my say about what's been happening on this noticeboard. Whether you read it or not is up to you — if it's too long for you to bother with, that's fine with me.

      Some of the participants here appear to think they're running a drumhead court martial. They're not. This is a kangaroo court; trial by auto-da-fé. It's certainly the first time that I've encountered somewhere that people are put into the stocks in the village square and then expected to account for themselves while being pelted with rotten fruit. Someone above uses the word bullying; what breathtaking hypocrisy. To pick another metaphor, shooting fish in a barrel is easy because the barrel is full of fish. This venue has managed to create the complete inverse by putting one fish in a barrel and surrounding it with gunmen.

      I've been called out on mistakes before. When people have talked to me on a one-to-one basis — that's why user talk pages exist, in order for direct and efficient communication — I've always been more than happy to talk through and consider my actions. If the responding administrator had chosen to leave me a message (perhaps "I believe the block was bad and wrong because..., can you explain yourself and are you willing to lift it before I do?") then there would have been the almost complete certainty of a diametrically opposite conclusion to events in every respect. However, he chose the single most dramatic course (including instantaneously undoing the block with the marvelous comment "WTF?" - how indicative of a bona fide attempt to resolve an issue) and parachuting me into here.

      With the exception of Floquenbeam emailing me, as I mentioned earlier, nobody has attempted to talk to me outside this obloquious vipers' nest. That does not include Anthonyhcole — the self-appointed Torquemada of this particular inquisition (who, incidentally, left me a talk page comment insulting me and calling other editors "morons" before deleting it a moment later — class act). Who is Anthonyhcole? Who knows. I'm not sure why someone that isn't an administrator would choose to hang around on what is ostensibly the administrators' noticeboard, unless they derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. It certainly isn't due to any formal role. Some people might respond to that kind of thing by digging through his record to try and have a mud-slinging match - much as he's decided it's somehow appropriate to present my RFAs as some kind of bizarre "evidence". I shan't descend to that level.

      My penance is also apparently expected to contain replying to massive slabs of mistaken accusations based on conjection and assumption, long after the fact of my actions being undone and judged and my being given a public whipping. Even if I did, whatever I said can and probably will be challenged by every drive-by Joe McCarthy wannabe that feels like taking a pop because they're convinced they know the contents of my own mind better than I do. What a great use of time and effort. Not to mention the presence of people who apparently choose to latch onto discussions in this space in order to use them as a springboard for presenting their own personal conspiracy theories.

      This environment appears to attract the officious in droves. Some are even so astonishingly self-important that they think, wrongly, that they can demand my immediate participation in this rotten caucus. Even after I've pointed out that I'm on vacation. And even threatening me with going to ArbCom if I fail to respond to their demands, in whatever pressing timescale they've conjured into existence. Presumably these threats of ArbCom involvement without prior formal dispute resolution are making the claim of the necessity of exception 1, "emergency action to remove administrator privileges"? That would presumably put me on a par with EncycloPetey, who Floquenbeam mentioned. I looked up the details of his desysopping, and frankly I reject the comparison.

      I've only had the administrators' noticeboards on my watchlist for a few months, but have barely looked at them in that time. I now understand why I frequently see them referred to as "the drama boards". As of right now I'm joining the growing number of administrators that choose to ignore them. My talk page, as always, remains open. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, that username you blocked was not a promotional username. Please read the quotebox just above. You got it wrong.
      The kangaroo court above involves ten admins and ten editors in good standing. All we've been waiting for is an acknowledgement from you that your block and your treatment around the block of O'Dea was inappropriate. That's all.
      I don't think you have the right temperament for adminship, I'm afraid. So I'm filing a request at RfA that they desysop you. I think this is such a clear case that it would be detrimental to the project to waste time on other processes. Perhaps ArbCom won't see it that way. We'll find out. I'll let you know when I've filed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If I was one to block for personal attacks, which I'm not, you'd find yourself blocked now, Hex, for the way you speak to Anthonyhcole above. Do you take WP:AN to be some kind of free zone where you get to say the first thing that comes into your head no matter how shitty it is? Or where you can express any amount of rudeness, contempt and ABF to anybody as long as they're not an admin? Because I notice there's a bit of a difference in the way you address the different categories of users in this thread: you speak reasonably civilly to the admins — within shouting distance of civilly, anyway — or, well, you avoid attacking them individually, anyway — while there's apparently nothing you won't say to a non-admin, from TL;DR to Torquemada. Therefore, I'm also beginning to think we should let ArbCom look at this. They may not indeed want to remove your tools for basically one bad use of them; but they should get a chance to sanction you just as a user, for generally appalling battleground behaviour. Then you can call them Joe McCarthy wannabes and tell them they must derive some sort of pleasure from having fights. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_desysop_Hex --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      For the record, Twehringer thesociety is not a promotional name. It's a personal name. The person's name is Tracy Wehringer, and xyr electronic mail address, given on press releases by the organization concerned as a contact, is twehringer@…. It's rather sad to see a person who straightforwardly uses xyr own name and the organization that xe works for suffering for supposedly having a "promotional name". I hope that this doesn't apply to account names like Okeyes (WMF), too. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Conversion therapy

      Similar question was asked on ANI, article tagged as being covered by ARBPSEUDO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Could an uninvolved admin look at Talk:Conversion_therapy#WP:ARBPSEUDO? In short there is discussion to see if this article can be considered as part of the Arbcom decision and edits placed under 1rr restriction to limit the edit warring. Thank you. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      See also the still open discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conversion therapy. Monty845 20:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies, I didn't know that was going on. Insomesia (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      WP:RM

      What the heck is going on with this page's backlog? There are discussions from November that haven't been closed yet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      October even (one of mine). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No snark being slung at Ryulong for even suggesting something should be done about this? Guess being an admin (or at least not being TenPoundHammer) gets you more leeway when it comes to signposting excessive backlogs. 31.6.19.194 (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hey look! This here edit above is 31.6.19.194's first and only edit? I wonder who he could be? It couldn't be an editor who comes here and demands that things be done, could it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not an admin?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      A pertinent observation! Backlogs happen, this is the holidays -- perhaps the ping will help, but in end, it'll all get done eventually. Salvidrim! 09:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Shhh. What 31.6 clearly knows is that the first rule of the drama boards is to never let the truth get in the way of some good snark; applying this rule by alleging that other editors have prioritized snarkiness over constructiveness is just for bonus points. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 17:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The backlog at WP:RM has been horrendous for months. On October 24 it was "only" 20, and climbed to over 120, which is where it is now. There just have not been enough users closing them. It likely has been years since it was cleared. We did make it worse for ourselves by encouraging more page moves to use WP:RM instead of just moving the page. Technical moves though - non-controversial ones, gets cleared out every day. We just need someone to step up to the plate and commit to clear out the back log every week, if not every day. Apteva (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll try to see if there are some good candidates for NACs, but these require clear and unquestionable consensus, as well as the non-existence of the target page... so hardly a majority, I'd expect. Salvidrim! 03:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It hasn't been years, but it is usually quite backed up. Every once in awhile it seems someone goes nuts there and closes them all. There is great rejoicing, and then a week later there is a huge backlog again. RM just doesn't get the attention it needs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a bit of a drag. I just did three old ones, and it took me more than half an hour, including reading, closing, moving, a notification here and there. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am happy to report that the backlog is down to "only" 89 today, that is a reduction of 32 in only two days. Great work! At this rate it will be cleared out in less than a week. Apteva (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Admin attention to an RFC/U, please

      I want to highlight this RFC/U for admins' attention: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva.

      In an attempt at strict compliance with closing instructions, a motion to close was drawn up on the talkpage: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close. The RFC has been open since 30 November 2012 (that's 33 days, as I write). Nothing important remains unconsidered, and the trickle of new contributions simply aligns with opinions that are already well exposed. The motion to close has revealed overwhelming consensus; the delay in implementing this consensus with a formal closure (and an accurately detailed summary of that consensus) perpetuates uncertainty on the Project (notably at WT:MOS).

      Would an admin who is experienced in these processes please take care of it? I request an admin, specifically. The consensus is clear, but the details need to considered with care. Several comments mention an approach to ArbCom if the matter is not settled with finality.

      Vielen Dank!

      NoeticaTea? 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      As far as I am aware, that RFC/U cannot be closed. You appear to be looking for option 3 under instructions which is a motion to close. However, you miss the general explanation over option 3 at the very top which says "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." Although you have a motion that has consensus, not all of the parties have agreed. So this cannot be closed yet. I might be reading this too strictly, I've only closed a handful of RFC/Us, but that's what I am seeing.--v/r - TP 13:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)--v/r - TP 13:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Tom that generally user conduct RFCs are not closed except by the subject user's consent. Generally, user conduct RFCs either fade away and are delisted or are escalated to Arbcom due to the subject user's refusal to consent to consensus. It's also worth noting that while it cannot serve as the sole basis for administrative sanctions, such as a block, a user conduct RFC can be indicative of behavior which could result in an administrator blocking the subject user. MBisanz talk 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If Apteva doesn't accept that consensus there, or at least abide by the spirit of the ban by stopping the disruption (which he seems to be continuing as we speak), then I'm told that a good next step is to request a community ban here at WP:AN. Is there some suggested process for that? Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course there is the option of requesting a topic ban here at WP:AN. Remember? That's what happened with PMAnderson, though that ban was later trumped by more stringent sanctions.
      I have reviewed the rather confusing provisions for closure of an RFC/U. Option 3 includes this text (my underlining):

      However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

      Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it? And why would any radically different new summary be seriously proposed? Yet I see that Hasteur has attempted another, much weaker summary, and has sought to impose it as somehow superseding those already in place. (See Motion to close (5) at the talkpage, which until I refactored for conformity with the established structure purported to be in a special category, somehow standing above the preceding motions.)
      Hasteur seems to have unusual views on the closing of these things: different from the guidelines, and different from views expressed above. I have asked Hasteur to give an explanation, here in this section.
      Again, if things do not proceed according to the guidelines, it may be necessary for ArbCom to settle the matter. Let's hope it will not come to that.
      NoeticaTea? 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      This has already been at [7] Neotarf (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      *COUGH* Noetica, since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first.
      1. You have failed to follow the instructions of this page. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. It's a big yellow box.
      2. The proper location to request closure of a RfC is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, a subsection at the very top of this page.
      3. If you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva, you would have seen that the proposed closure I make is weaker only because that's a neutral summary that doesn't impose any next steps. RfC/U is not about making next steps, it's about informing the subject of a significant problem with their editing.
      4. You'll see that I've "propose closed" contentious RfC/U's in the same manner before and been thanked for it [8].
      5. Finally, your request here is what caused me to come look at the RfC/U again. Finessing the rules is how these lower closes can happen while at the same time leaving tracks for future disruptive behaviors to roll forward on.
      I question if you, Noetica, might benefit from a vacation from the area around this RfC/U as you seem to be heavily invested (both mentally and emotionally) in seeking sanctions. Let it go. Hasteur (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Serious, guillotine? blood? I don't hear Noetica suggesting anything like that. He's just frustrated, as I have been for months, that there doesn't seem to be a way to get Apteva to stop the disruption. I thought that after a few months and warnings my request to AN/I would have been enough to get an admin to give him a firm warning with penalty of block for continued disruption, but it was ignored. Now that we've got a huge consensus that he needs to stop and avoid this area where everything he has tried to do has been firmly rejected as disruptive and against consensus, we're still nowhere in terms of a process to get him to stop. Can you help instead of trying to make Noetica the bad guy here? Dicklyon (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, Hasteur did say this: AN or RfArb, but first see if Apteva will take on board the viewpoints (Apteva hasn't. or at least has not agreed to stop what is being asked to stop). HaugenErik (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hasteur, I answer your numbered points:
      1. Do you mean Apteva? If so, that is explained at Apteva's talkpage. The discussion was not started about Apteva, but about the state of an RFC/U and how to close it according to settled procedures. If you mean I have failed to notify you, please note: You are not the subject of the discussion. The discussion is about how to proceed in a case that cries out for closure when there is already a very strong consensus established, and you have sought to act administratively in the case. Anyway, you were notified of this discussion, at the talkpage of the RFC/U.
      2. A request for closure was indeed posted at the location you suggest. I sought action on that request, and that seems to be fair and normal. I also sought clarification of some very obscure closing instructions. Obviously people interpret them differently, so I feel perfectly justified in making this approach here.
      3. The neutrality and utility of your attempt at an administrative summing-up are seriously questionable, in the face of a clear expression of opinion from a great majority of the participating editors. Your immoderate language against me does you no credit: "since you seem to be out for blood please place yourself in the guillotine first"; "if you had shelved your bloodlust for sanctioning Apteva". By itself, that is a good basis for action concerning your conduct. In particular, for a request or sanctions aimed at excluding you from intervening administratively in any RFC/U.
        I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording, which I say is inflammatory and abusive, and does not reflect the facts.
      4. I know that you have been thanked for your actions in the past, and I don't doubt that they were well intended. I am concerned about the present very serious case, in which there is a plain consensus – one that your actions might possibly nullify, despite your good intentions here also.
      5. My request here was specifically for an "admin who is experienced in these processes" to deal expeditiously with an important case where a clear consensus has emerged. It was specifically not for a non-admin. It is disappointing that you still intervened. No one is trying to "finesse the rules", except perhaps you (I regret having to say). I came here to get action, but also clarity about Byzantine rules that I am now convinced need re-drafting. (I might take some part in that, because I have experience with clear unambiguous drafting.)
      Last, I note your condescending remarks about my taking a vacation. I could make similar remarks about you, with at least equal justification. I am a style specialist, with more edits at WP:MOS than any other editor (mostly to tidy things, and to guard against non-consensual or ill-documented changes), but believe me: I willingly absent myself from there for months at a time. Almost a year, in 2010. It is impertinent of you to make suggestions about my mental and emotional well-being, when I pursue the normal business of assisting to deal with disruption in a WP area that is my specialty. You have no idea what you are talking about.
      I now formally ask you to withdraw that wording also.
      ♥
      NoeticaTea? 23:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      @Noetica: You said

      However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past.

      Well and good. But in the present case, the summary at the first motion to close has vastly more acceptance than any other. So how could any other summary supplant it?
      You yourself quoted the most important aspect of closing an RFC/U. All participants, including the target of the RFC/U, must agree to the close. RFC/Us arnt meant to have teeth. They are a discussion that are meant to get the target to see what their poor behavior is. If they fail, then they fail and you move on to higher dispute resolution. However, ignoring the line that you underlined because you have 28 v 4 votes in favor of your preferred close doesn't mean squat and is completely against the purpose of an RFC/U. Sorry, it's unfair to you, but that's what they are. Hastuer gave good advice, I suggest you take it.--v/r - TP 17:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Hasteur, this is nothing against you personally, but the instructions do say specifically that an admin can be requested for the close, and this was done. While non-admin closures of RFCs are often appreciated elsewhere in the interests of clearing backlogs, in my experience, any editors who wander into the area of MOS, myself included, quickly find themselves trying to walk on quicksand. Non-admins who have tried to close MOS-related RFCs in the past have deeply regretted it. A non-admin closure simply will not be seen as legitimate. In addition, you will not be viewed as "uninvolved" since you participated in the RFC/U yourself, here: WP:Requests for comment/Apteva#Outside view by Hasteur, recommending that hyphens and en-dashes be replaced by spaces. The sky is blue, the pope is Catholic, and Noetica is Noetica. Let it go.

      So we are back to Dicklyon's original question. Is there a suggested process for requesting a community ban here at WP:AN?

      Neotarf (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Most people who wander over to MOS make one or two edits, almost 300 in the last couple of years, while less than half a dozen made over 50 edits, and only two over 100 edits each (one of whom quit editing WP because of being tired of "arguing with [deleted] about trivia"). Not sure about it being quicksand, but it has not exactly been what anyone would call welcoming, although the talk page header says "Be polite, and welcoming to new users" (it was missing for part of last year). On the talk page almost 500 editors made one or two edits (about half), and just over half a dozen made over 500 edits each. Apteva (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Apteva, twenty-eight editors have just signed a statement saying they want you to change your behavior, and you are babbling about numbers of edits???!!1! Do you have any clue about what is going on here? Are you willing to pay any attention to them? —Neotarf (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal for topic ban for Apteva

      Based on the RFC/U and discussion here, and User:Apteva's rejection of all relevant findings and advice, I propose that we declare a community ban for Apteva, from engaging in pushing anti-en-dash and anti-MOS theories, including the theory that MOS and TITLE are in conflict. After the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Apteva, summarized in Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva#Motion to close with 28 editors' endorsements, and considering Apteva's rejection of those findings and continued dispruptive pushing of these theories in the New Year, I see no alternatives (since the RFC/U can't be closed without his agreement and bothering the Arbcom with this seems unnecessary given the clear community consensus).

      The consensus RFC/U summary says:

      Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, has been disruptive. Respecting the wishes of the community as represented by an overwhelming majority of responders at this RFC/U, Apteva will refrain from any further advocating of this position, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and will not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for a block and/or a request for arbitration.

      And the continued disruption is evident in Apteva's WT:TITLE discussion, including these 2013 items:

      • WT:TITLE diff – holding out for his idiosyncratic view with "The very core of using consensus is that even if 6,000 agree with something and only one disagrees, that one just might be right."
      • WT:TITLE diff – continuing his long-lost case of Comet Hale–Bopp being incorrectly named.
      • contributors data – showing Apteva dominating discussion at WP:TITLE in this new year, in spite of months of being told by many that this behavior is disruptive.

      Rephrasing slightly for the context, I propose the following ban be enacted:

      Apteva's persistent pushing of the theory that en dashes are never appropriate in proper names, such as the names of wars, comets, bridges, and airports, and his pushing of the theory that the MOS does not apply to article titles, has been disruptive. Based on the consensus reaction of the community, Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes or against the MOS being applicable to article titles, and must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories. Violation of this topic ban will be grounds for an immediate block and/or a request for arbitration.

      I believe any uninvolved admin can close and approve this ban here based on the existing discussions linked, especially given the existing AE discretionary sanctions in place concerning MOS and TITLE; I suggest we get Apteva's response here, and then not bother to repeat the reactions that are so richly represented already in the linked RFC/U and elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • A topic ban and community ban are different things; may want to clarify. --Rschen7754 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:CBAN says "If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute." I'm referring to a community-imposed topic ban. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I've been monitoring this from a distance, and the fact that Apteva does not understand what she is doing wrong is quite disturbing and disruptive. --Rschen7754 22:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        While I occasionally miss these, that is he or she thank you. Or xe. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. This should be at ANI, not AN. I have been watching the progress of the RfCU and I must say that a topic ban on hyphens and dashes is long overdue. Binksternet (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: Does this propsed topic ban on hyphens v dashes extend to article content and article titles via the RM process or does it just apply to the  MOS guideline? I think this aspect should extraordinairly clear in the propsal. --Mike Cline (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
        • We have also seen disruptive refactoring discussion, archiving, resetting of bots, tampering with templates, etc. None of this was a problem when Apteva was editing only in article space. —Neotarf (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The proposal includes "must not make any page moves or RMs based on such theories". I have not noticed any disruption in article content, but if the dash aversion makes itself felt in articles, too, then the provision "Apteva must refrain from any further advocating of these positions, or any position against en dashes" ought to be enough to keep the disruption down, I would think. I'm not into trying to wikilawyer the details; I'm sure xe can be warned if the behavior seems like it's near the line, so xe's not going to accidentally get ximself blocked. Propose a clarification here if you think one is warranted. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support the strongly expressed consensus, and the topic ban as a regrettable necessity. (I have closed the RFC/U, though I was involved. It was just a technical matter, since the transfer to this page.) There is no need for a new round of voting here, of course. Everything has already been thoroughly gone over at the RFC/U and its talkpage, with a convincing outcome.
        NoeticaTea? 23:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Which I reverted - no involved editor can close a non-consensus RfC. Apteva (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Not helpful to your cause or to anything else, Apteva. I have reverted your reversion. For one thing, you are centrally involved. For another, it is highly disruptive for you to revert a technical closure (fully explained as such), which any editor in good standing may perform, regardless of involvement. Nothing in the closing instructions for RFC/U provides otherwise. I call on editors to assist in keeping the RFC/U duly closed; the discussion is now correctly transferred here. NoeticaTea? 00:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Typical. I trust that an uninvolved admin will revert the above action and post a warning appropriately on the above editor's talk page. How many times was the RfC closed and reverted at MOS by the same edit warrior?[9] Edit warring is prohibited. [The only thing I am asking for is that this editor learn to stop edit warring.] Apteva (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh huh. A quick and dirty link to a complex matter that was thoroughly dealt with at ANI, with no action against any of a whole bunch of parties including some shady old hand posting as an IP? Sorry – no more straws to clutch at. Move this along now? NoeticaTea? 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • support Whatever it is. I'm happy with an indef site ban by now, after it has gone on this long. Rarely have I seen an editor so clue-resistant. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support with broadly defined topics. —Neotarf (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – even here, well into the 11th hour, ban looming, Apteva seems intent via yet more ill-judged remarks upon depriving Wikipedia of the one editor who knows an en—dash from their elbow. (I seem to recall that Socrates did not choose his last words optimally.) Oculi (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Topic ban, and Oppose Community ban. Just in case, I'm gonna make it clear: A topic ban may be useful, because the user can still edit and enjoy the good parts of the pedia; also, the virus that infects his desire of changing things and all the drama is gone. I oppose a community ban because whe've had enough of that. I don't want another Jack Merridew case here. Let's just cut it simple, remove what has been bugging the community, and give the user the free will to edit elsewhere and being harmless. — ΛΧΣ21 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conditional Oppose for now, see my comments at the Opposition to a topic ban section. As I said below consider my !vote to become support or partial support if Apteva does not keep to that. PaleAqua (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support a ban along these lines, broadly defined—I think we've had enough of this. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose RFC/U is a form of dispute resolution. As of right now, the RFC/U has been closed for 9 hours. Give the editor time to reflect on what has transpired. He/she now knows that the community has found their behavior to be disruptive. If they are wise, then they will learn from this. However, if in a week or two the disruption has continued, then we can revisit a topic ban. Right now though I feel such a topic ban would be preemptive rather than solving a problem that may well have been at least partially resolved through the RFC/U. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That close was to bring the conversation here, after Apteva had rejected the consensus summary of the RFC/U and continued the months of disruption into the new year. Dicklyon (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously the purpose of all of our dispute resolution mechanisms is to help us learn to work harmoniously together, and not call for blocks and bans. It is certainly reasonable to wait a week and see if the RFC helped. But just to be specific, that close was allegedly because of the conversation here, not to bring the conversation here. But this is the "Admin attention to an RFC/U, please" thread, and an admin was specifically requested, and rejected, as the proper close was to just let it finish, which it has, but it is not correct to close it by anyone involved, and that should be reverted. Apteva (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, per proposer, and on the further basis that Apteva's continued efforts to argue this tedious nonsense about lines that our readers can't tell apart, and wouldn't care about if they could, even as the ban is being discussed here. Nothing short of an outright ban is going to shut him/her up, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      His attitude on his talk page would suggest otherwise. If you think about it, the concern he raised was legitimate. One's keyboard has a dash, yet articles use em dashed. It is a bit odd to say the least. There is a redirect from the dash version anyway, so ultimately the debate isn't worth much, but it is still a valid point. However, he took it too far and argued his point too long after consensus was reached. This resulted in an RFC/U where the community established that continuing to debate the topic was causing disruption. With this in mind, Apteva has two options. He can continue to debate the issue and end up with a topic ban, or he can let the issue lie and go on with editing articles. It's really up to Apteva, does he want to receive a topic ban due to the fact that he debated how many pixels a line should have in a title?
      The RFC/U was used as dispute resolution in this case. It has run it's course, the community established that and his continuing the debate was disruptive, and Apteva now knows his options. So far, Apteva has ceased performing the actions that led RFC/U. Providing this remains so, the RFC/U served it's purpose and resolved the dispute. If it continues in the future, then we can revisit a topic ban discussion. Right now, a topic ban would simply be a punishment for causing past disruption. Let the past remain in the past, topic bans are not intended to be punitive, but rather preventive. There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased. So let's lay this to rest. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "There is no disruption to prevent at the moment due to Apteva having ceased". If he/she had, you might have a point - but Apteva is still arguing the case for whatever-length-lines-wherever, even in this discussion. A ban will (hopefully) prevent any more of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      What he is asking for in the section below is cooler heads when discussing MoS topics. Yes, this is not the place or the time for it due to the fact that this is a topic ban debate concerning him, but it is a reasonable request. MoS debates can quite quickly degrade into heated exchanges. Followed by editors attempting to topic ban another group of editors or one specific editor. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Alternative proposal

      Whereas, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia. This is fostered by creating and maintaining an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among the contributors.
      Whereas, Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, gaming the system, and using Wikipedia as a battleground, is prohibited. Administrators and other experienced editors should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another.
      Whereas, Wikipedia exists only because of the community that creates and maintains it. Disagreements between editors on a wide variety of issues frequently occur. The airing of disagreements in a respectful and sincere manner for the purpose of resolution is normal and indeed desirable in any such collaborative project. Where disputes cannot be resolved amicably through the ordinary course of editing and discussion, the project's dispute resolution mechanisms may be used.
      Therefore, appropriate dispute resolution shall be applied, such as discussion, DR, RfC, and mediation to resolve any conflict that may exist between or within the WP:MOS and WP:Article titles.
      Furthermore, to remove the incivility that currently exists at WP:MOS, both the MOS and its talk page shall be treated as a Dispute Resolution page, and not edited unless a DR volunteer is present. There shall be no discussion of other editors, no discussion of how to apply the MOS (those questions shall be referred to the WP:Help desk), and no discussion or reference to violations of the MOS anywhere in Wikipedia. Discussion will be civil, and consist solely of improving the MOS. Anything else will be deleted or removed to the relevant users talk page. This sanction shall remain until either removed by Arbcom or the end of 2013.

      --Apteva (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • oppose MOS isn't the problem, you are. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose per WP:IDHT. --Rschen7754 00:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose—A lot of these whereas clauses are good, but the but the proposals are pretty far out in the weeds. How can we improve the MOS if we can't discuss whether it lines up with style that is in use? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Those whereas's are all Arbcom motions that all passed unanimously, so I would hope that all of them are good. What we are supposed to be doing, in my opinion is writing an encyclopedia. We write a few articles, write some guidelines, and go back to working on the encyclopedia. A better place to discuss style issues is at the help desk. Doing that has the added advantage that those who do not know a period from an asterisk can learn too, instead of the present method where only a few MOS specialists hang out. If you come upon something that is not in the MOS and you think it should be, then that can be brought up at the MOS talk page and if others agree added, or even just added to the MOS and if others disagree it can be discussed. But unless it is obvious vandalism it is better to discuss instead of edit warring, which is what is being done now. The above proposal I believe will go a long ways toward improving the current incivility that exists at the MOS. Apteva (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose a thicket of strange transplanted verbiage, in which we discern yet more ducking and weaving from Apteva. We've seen all of this before. These smokescreens were a great part of the problem; how do they now get to be a solution? NoeticaTea? 09:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Opposition to a topic ban

      I realize that there are valid viewpoints on both sides of this argument. The consensus definitely appears to be in favor of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible, and while doing so ensuring that it does not continue. Is it really necessary, though, to topic-ban Apteva? Yes, his role in this dispute has engendered controversy and resulted in general commotion in various places here on Wikipedia, but I think that merely resolving the dispute in accordance with consensus should suffice. This should be done without the additional imposition of a topic-ban or associated threat of a block. Instead, discussion on this topic should be limited or even entirely restricted for a given time; when it is allowed to resume, it must be done in a way that only discussion, and not related alterations to Wikipedia, ensues. dci | TALK 01:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I no longer care about the baby, but this bathwater is getting cold. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the issue is old, and the discussion a mite tiresome; but is a topic ban really appropriate, given circumstances? Based on a recent conversation I held with Apteva at his talk page, I can say confidently that he really does have reasonable intentions at heart. Why not give him a chance here, and move along? dci | TALK 02:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Give Apteva a chance? Give us a break. Has any editor been given more chances to step back from egregious widespread disruption? Apteva has squandered every such opportunity, and continues to do so. Let's move along. By all means. NoeticaTea? 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      When the editor in question has agreed to consider stepping aside from such topics for a time, I believe we can afford to give him a break. At any rate, we can all benefit from withdrawing ourselves from the rather minute details of dash length, and the least we can do is request a cessation in pressing this matter, from all parties. That way, we can wrap things up without burdening users with topic bans and the like. Personally, I don't like the idea of forcing someone to stop propagating their opinions; I think it's perfectly fine if Apteva does so, as long as he doesn't undertake overly controversial actions in the process. dci | TALK 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      There is the presumption of a right to express opinions, and then there is flagrant interminable and widespread abuse of that presumption, perverting it to disrupt work at half a dozen major development sites across the Project and innumerable user talkpages and pointy RM discussions. No glimmer of insight in evidence, and no hint of any reform.
      There are limits. We reached them about eight weeks back. NoeticaTea? 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Apteva's has made a few comments like [10] recently, and I haven't seen much new in the way of move requests or the like. With my !vote changing to partial support of the topic ban if he or she makes another such move requests or reopens a new discussion on horizontal lines. As mentioned in the RfC/U I do think Apteva should be allowed to make terse / brief comments in discussions started by others on dashes, hyphens and the like, though would probably be best to hold off for a while on those as well. PaleAqua (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        A comment of "That sounds fair enough" is a far cry from committing himself to stopping the disruption. At many other places he has essentially promised to keep it up. If he wants to take a voluntary respite from disruption, let him propose that here. His proposal above is hardly in the right direction. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        PaleAqua, I'm confused. What exactly are you supporting here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Basically I am as sick of this nonsense as everyone else, and have agreed to back off, or recuse, as indicated above. I only hope that all of us have learned something from this, and will all have a great and productive new year. Apteva (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Being sick of it is understandable. But you still haven't said you've heard the problem, nor promised to stop it. So a topic ban is needed, it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Apteva, in the last few hours just above you said It is a fact that dashes and hyphens are used in a certain way, and I would like to propose that we use them appropriately and I am actually one of the very few editors who knows what a dash and a hyphen is, and knows when they are correctly used, so not editing dashes and hyphens and not expressing a view on them is pointless—are you sticking by those, or what do you mean here by "as indicated above"? Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Lets back up a little, what was proposed, as I understood it, was a temporary "recusal" from the dash-or-hyphen dispute, which I agreed to. This is, of course a voluntary recusal.
      Most of the books written use hyphens and dashes in a certain way, is what I was saying. No one can change that. It is a fact that per WP policy it would reasonably be expected that WP would do whatever the majority of those books do, per the well established policy of common usage, instead of doing what only one out of 50 do. That is the crux of the problem. But that can wait for another day, year, decade or century. Wikipedia does not have a deadline.
      I do a lot of RCP and WP:RM, but for the time being will ignore any that involve hyphens and dashes. Apteva (talk) 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose any such bargaining, with no prospect of anything clear at all as a solution. We are dealing with an editor who once advertised intended candidacy for admin at RFA, for bureaucrat [sic] at RFB, and some other high office, in a random order. When Apteva did in fact go for RFB, the ensuing time-wasting and contemptuous game was taken seriously. (!) See an archived response at Apteva's talkpage. It makes fascinating reading. That was preceded by an RFA attempt, and followed by another. The quixotic campaign we are now having to deal with is the latest in a long series, and one that has drained most energy as the community attempts to absorb its impact. What on earth can we expect next time around? If there had been any frank statement of regret or contrition, we might reasonably give Apteva another chance. But there has been none. It's time for action, not foot-shuffling and setting ourselves up to be hoodwinked yet again by an experienced trickster. (Strong and strange language? Well, I can think of nothing more apt for this extraordinary situation.) NoeticaTea? 09:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC

      Could an admininstrator please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. TFD (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There's been almost no comments there. It's fairly inactive. I would have a hard time summarizing any consensus from the small number of comments and endorsements there. --Jayron32 04:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, it really should be closed as without merit in regards to community opinion as only a couple of the involved in the disputes have commented , so there is not community interest or assessment of the situation and that RFC should not be considered as a reason to allow escalation to Arbitration - It does need to be closed though as its been open long enough as per guidelines , hasn't it? - certified on the 20th of November , open for 6 weeks - and as such I second the request for closure - I am uninvolved imo and willing to close it myself if no admin wants to ? Youreallycan 07:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Closed - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 07:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I closed it 24 hours after the un-actioned request here - also tarc - there is no requirement for an admin only close - I was uninvolved in the rfc user and with the user in question - I am not seeing any dispute with the details and rationale of my close? - Youreallycan 15:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      No, it isn't a requirement but it is one of those things that's usually a pretty good idea. If someone sees an admin closure they're far less likely to slam the undo button, IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The closure was clearly invalid. According to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing, "Certified disputes may be closed under any of the following circumstances: If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped. From the main page, such RfC/Us are typically "delisted due to inactivity.", The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration, The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that rFc/u)."
      It is evident that none of these applies: the dispute continues, and further complaints are still being made; there has been no move to another method of dispute resolution; and the parties have not agreed to a closure, certainly not on the RfC/U talk page. In these circumstances, even an admin closure would have been inappropriate, let alone one by a passing non-admin. RolandR (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You really should strike everything following the comma in that last sentence. There's always more to read, it seems. --Nouniquenames 05:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678

      I am currently applying to be a member of BAG and input is greatly appreciated.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2013 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      There really aren't many admin who have the technical knowledge to express an informed opinion. We generally just wait for things to go wrong.©Geni 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      BAG pages are not really that visible, and so it has been part of the policy since time immemorial that nominations have to be broadly spammed all over the place :D Snowolf How can I help? 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Time immemorial = July 3, 2008. MBisanz talk 19:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      That the time it has been in the bot policy, it was required way before that despite not being in the policy. Snowolf How can I help? 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Time immemorial means since April 2007 which was when the concept of spamming boards started out :) Snowolf How can I help? 01:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Usurping accounts with a large number of edits

      There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Large usurp, regarding the appropriate way to handle a request to usurp an account belonging to a now-banned editor with a large number (5500) of edits. The bureaucrats have asked for additional input. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Quick read on an unblock request

      Unblocked by TheEd.--v/r - TP 17:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Now comes Ranger1991 (talk · contribs), who was blocked indef in May 2008 as a vandalism-only account. The account's history largely bears that out - 17 edits from August 2007 to May 2008, all the sort of juvenile kids-screwing-around flavor of vandalism we've all seen before. Good block, to all appearances. Now, over 4 years later, the editor has come back requesting unblock. They acknowledge that they screwed up and that they were deservedly blocked, but note that it has been a long time - they have changed. If unblocked, the editor plans to correct grammatical and spelling errors. I can see a case here for unblocking, but am not willing to pull the trigger on such a gamble without getting some further input. The blocking editor (User:Gwernol) retired in June 2009. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Support unblock People can change a lot in four years - give him some WP:ROPE and see what he does with it. If the vandalism does reoccur, reblocking is no big deal. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. No evidence of socking; seems like a good WP:OFFER case. From the username, I'm guessing that the user was 16 when the vandalism began and that he's 21 now, which can make a huge difference. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Though I did not ask about the user's age, your analysis matches my own - and is precisely why I raised the issue here. God knows what a douchebag I would have been had I been an editor here at 16. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Notification: Global Lock of User:Fête

      As requested by a Steward, I am notifying enwiki that User:Fête has been globally locked from editing all Wikimedia projects, following persistent abuse across frwiki, frwikt, enwiki, enwikt. I am unsure which template(s) should be applied to his userspace, so I will leave that for someone here to take care of. Salvidrim! 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      {{Indefblocked-global}}, I think.--ukexpat (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Placed. It should be replaced if we have a globally-locked template, but I don't know of any. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      {{Locked global account}}. Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      "And there was much rejoicing!" --Orange Mike | Talk 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      User and talk page protection required

      Hi, can someone please place a protection on my user and talk pages? I seem to have attracted the attention of a complete idiot and I've no doubt it will go on even though I've warned him that I'll go to the police if it continues. I suspect the problem has arisen because I twice challenged an IP who was attacking another user. It looks a safe bet that it's the same person. Relevant diffs are this, this, this, this and this. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Old Lanky (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Most of those diffs are by you. I only see two IP edits on your user page and talk page. That doesn't necessitate protection yet.--v/r - TP 21:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Violations of WP:NLT don't help either. Rutebega (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Quite. Frankly, Old Lanky, looking at the comments you've highlighted what I see is you starting by assuming bad faith and then accelerating far past the level of propriety. Ironholds (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates

      Hey, everyone! We're about to come out of our holiday period, and could use a little more participation while people are still trickling back, particularly as we're ending the extensions on the candidacies we were doing around the Christmas.

      It's a fairly relaxed process, so long as you've read the WP:Featured picture criteria and like looking at artworks, it's worth giving it a try!

      Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Moshe Friedman

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Friedman Need help because the editor there continues cursing and using foul language. The indidivual Friedman is a radical extremist and they keep saying cannot refer to him as bad simply because he's alive. Well that isnt what wiki rules are. Please assist. Tellyuer1 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      It looks as if Tellyuer, having unsuccessfully tried to get the article deleted, is disputing the situation with everyone else at the article; most of the recent edits have been them undoing him, typically referring to WP:BLP or WP:RS, or saying that the revisions are unsourced. Nyttend (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=531431884"