Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fevrret (talk | contribs) at 08:43, 11 September 2014 (→Civility Violation). 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}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

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

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process

      (Initiated 217 days ago on 15 May 2024) Discussion died down quite a long time ago. I do not believe anything is actionable but a formal closure will help. Soni (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      information Note: Not sure if anyone is looking into this, but might be a good idea to wait for a few weeks since there is ongoing discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#RFC on number of pages to split to

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 29 October 2024)

      I genuinely don't care what the result is, as long as we have an actionable result. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gaza_genocide#RfC_about_starvation_estimate

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 9 December 2024) Conversation seems to have winded down. It doesn't seem likely further votes will change the consensus, in my opinion.Originalcola (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:United Kingdom Special Forces#RFC - Is the website "www.eliteukforces.info" a reliable source?

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 9 December 2024) Hello. Could an uninvolved editor please close this discussion. Thanks. Melbguy05 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
      CfD 0 0 0 13 13
      TfD 0 0 0 10 10
      MfD 0 0 2 1 3
      FfD 0 0 1 6 7
      RfD 0 0 20 37 57
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:LGBT history in Georgia#Proposed merge of LGBT rights in Georgia into LGBT history in Georgia

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 7 October 2024) A merge + move request with RM banners that needs closure. No new comments in 20 days. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Tesla_Cybercab#Proposed_merge_of_Tesla_Network_into_Tesla_Cybercab

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Wolverine (train)#Requested move 23 October 2024

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 23 October 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Illicium_verum#Requested_move_18_November_2024

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 18 November 2024) RM sitting since a month. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Need a close and enforcement of consensus at a deletion review

      The deletion discussion, the fourth of its kind on this issue, is at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 14#IPhone 6. Although I feel that there is no hurry to close most deletion discussions, I do feel that this particular discussion is a special case. Not only is this the fourth discussion on this topic, and the third in less than 5 months, but this is a "redirect" deletion discussion, which means that every time someone nominates this redirect for deletion, it disrupts the redirect by placing a template on the page, so that the redirect cannot do its required job. Obviously, the first three discussions ended with the redirect being kept. The last discussion before this current one lasted a month and a half. This latest discussion has been opened for over a week. Nothing new seems to have been presented, and there is a clear majority of users who feel that the redirect should be kept. The user who nominated the redirect this past time has less than 200 edits, and most of those are dedicated to getting this redirect deleted. The user has even threatened to continue nominating this redirect for deletion a fifth time if he/she does not get his/her way (notice in that last edit that he/she struck out my previous comment without explanation. The user has even said that he/she will continue to resist even if its the tenth time. You will also notice in the previous discussion that that user tends to shout and will have ZERO TOLERANCE of this redirect.

      I not sure how anyone else sees this, but it is clear to me that this user is very disruptive and has vowed to stop at nothing to get his/her way. I'm just looking for closure on this so we can move on with more productive work.--JOJ Hutton 19:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      @Jojhutton: Closed. I don't normally close RfDs so let me know if I broke anything. No comment (yet) on the disruption allegations above. Did you let the editor in question know you brought them up on AN? Protonk (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the close. About informing the other editor, I was only really concerned about the close and this wasn't a discussion about the editor in question. I only really mentioned that users edits as a basis for the close and wasn't reporting that user. Anyway, thanks again for the close of that discussion. If reports are correct (which they always are on iPhones), that redirect will an article in a few weeks anyway. But until then, its nice to know that the redirect will serve its function until then.--JOJ Hutton 01:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Now I'm confused. They haven't edited in 3 days and they were blocked a few hours ago for a period of 31 hours? @Orangemike, can you give some color on this? Protonk (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, clearly I wasn't watching the chronology closely enough. Proton, do you think I should assume that this person has suddenly seen the light? Or alternatively, do you think I should have just permablocked them? Because frankly, I was leaning that way, but was trying not to live up to my rep as a bitey admin. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was literally just confused and figured I was missing something. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, at this point I'm open for suggestions, and you're a pretty savvy guy. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd say unblock them and leave a note that you got the dates wrong. They seem pretty shouty on the subject, but I don't know if a longer block (which would, paradoxically, make more sense here) is warranted. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Is a topic-ban needed?

      If the editor says that he will continue to propose redirects for deletion even after they have repeatedly been kept, is a topic-ban needed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      No, what's needed here is a block, and probably a lengthy one, as he has explicitly stated he intends to continue pointy nominations because he refuses to listen to the community. "I want that page to be deleted"; "It's time for you to support the deletion party and it's the only way to prevent the 5th discussion" - complete with striking out an opposing editor's comment. AGF is not a suicide pact - the blocking should continue until clue improves.- The Bushranger One ping only 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Well my goal was not to get anyone, including this account, blocked. I was only trying to list a pattern of behavior by this editor that would lead to the discussion being closed. I was actually surprised that there was a block implemented. Especially when there hadn't been activity from that account in nearly three days. (I'm also surprised that there hasn't been any activity from that account in three, now four days.) So I support the unblock, at least for now. But since a pattern of behavior has now been established, its up to that user to decide what to do next. This won't be a redirect very long anyway since its most likely going to be a full fledged article in two weeks from today, so there is little to fret about.--JOJ Hutton 20:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Unarchived in order to get a discussion closure. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No Topic bans should be a (nearly) last resort. They're a pain to define and enforce, frustrating for the subject and only really useful in narrow cases. Worthy of noting in this case: the editor in question has not edited since the 22nd of august and may not return to editing. That doesn't mean we couldn't enforce a community sanction but it certainly saps this discussion of any real urgency. I'm dismayed at the (recent?) community enthusiasm for topic bans and our willingness to shit on an editor from a great height without their participation in a discussion. RfD, iPhones and the wiki will all survive without a community topic ban (as evidenced by the archiving of this discussion without result!), so we can all dial it back a bit. Protonk (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose topic ban - Historically, the community's decision to impose a topic ban on an editor is mostly a solution to avoid having to remove an established editor from the project entirely when the problems are confined to a single topic but the editor is deemed otherwise constructive outside that topic (same for IBANs). In this case, the editor hasn't been around for long and has less than 200 edits; that tells me there is no justification to settle for a lesser remedy, and that a topic ban will not "let the user continue contributing positively outside the TBAN". I support a block (indef or escalating at the blocking admin's discretion) if the user returns to disruption. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No topic ban necessary, though a block for disruption will be in order if they try to nominate it for RfD again (along with speedy closure of the RfD). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose ban proposal, block if the user causes more disruption at RFD - unless the user is clearly helpful in oter areas of Wikipedia, there's no advantage to banning him/her. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Come on admins, please look into and comment on this

      I'm unarchiving this thread--we owe it to Martinvl to at least have this be reviewed by more people than just two. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving, would an uninvolved administrator please close this? Crazynas t 02:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      An appeal from User:Martinvl

      I'm pasting this exactly as it was sent to me: Martinvl is asking for a specific kind of permission, of a limited kind, and I can confirm that Martin is in fact working on an appeal to the block. The specific request here is of a kind I haven't encountered before, and I cannot possibly say what its merits are, but I wish Martin the best. --Drmies

      I received an invitation from Jonathan Cardy requesting assistance at one or more of the following training sessions:

      I have received formal instruction (at Wikipedia's expense) on training, but I am currently subject to an indefinite block given by User:Drmies and a topic ban given by User:TParis. These sanctions are the result of an ANI lodged by User:Wee Curry Monster. It is therefore difficult for me to volunteer to assist at any of these event. I am currently working on an appeal against the indefinite block. In order for me to volunteer, I really need an account from which to work and to use when demonstrating Wikipedia facilities to students. Some trainers use their own accounts, others create special accounts as per WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses. In order to volunteer my services, I need a guarantee that I have an account from which I can work in front of students. I therefore request permission from the community that I be permitted to volunteer my assistance in the knowledge that if, for some reason, I am still subject to an indefinite block, that I be permitted to create an account strictly for purposes of the training day as per WP:Sock puppetry#Legitimate uses.

      For the record, I have assisted at a number of training sessions, the last one being on the day that I received the topic ban mentioned above.

      --All this from User:Martinvl. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Am I blind (very possible) or are there no links to the ban and block discussions?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So let's unblock them so they can do the training. NE Ent 00:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd support unblocking Martinvl's primary account for the purpose of participating in a training session (while keeping the topic ban in place). A permanent unblock would require the posting of a formal unblock request, I think. Deor (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure about unblock, but I propose that, despite being blocked, Martinvl should be authorised to create a new secondary account, "User:Martinvl (training)" or similar, which (a) is to be used only for training purposes as described, and (b) is subject to the same topic ban as his main account. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • JohnCD, that's an interesting option--thanks. Perhaps a crat can weigh in here as well--Writ Keeper, are you up yet? Drmies (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really sure what insight a 'crat could provide here; if y'all wanna do it, do it. For my part, I'm a little nonplussed at the idea--if we trust a person to be training others in Wikipedia things, surely we trust them enough to just unblock them for reals? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • You do names and accounts, and you're more important than us. On the second, more important note, I don't know what to think of it myself. Martin is apparently working on an unblock request but the request sounds more like an appeal to the topic ban (he's drafting it on his talk page). An unblock request ought to be simple: "I'm sorry, I messed up, I won't do it again", and I for one (that is, plussed) wouldn't (likely) oppose. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblock and keep topic ban. A year block is enough. If he returns to disruptive behavior, reblocks are cheap. He was angry before, no surprise he'd lash out. I don't hold any grudges for his comments directed at me on the other language Wikipedias. Let him return.--v/r - TP 18:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • To make clear, I support permanent unblocking regardless of his employment opportunities/training period. Indefinite does not mean infinite. We're well past the time that he was being disruptive and if he can edit without the disruption then there is no reason to make this unblock a temporary one.--v/r - TP 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblock, retain topic ban – Having been involved in the dispute that lead to his blocking, I believe that an unblocking is now in order. As TParis says above, "reblocks are cheap". Let him do the work he wants to do. In other words, given him WP:ROPE. If the disruption resumes, he will be swiftly reblocked. It is as simple as that. RGloucester — ☎ 18:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Now having read his "drafts" of various un-blocking/un-topic banning appeals, I realise that I spoke too soon. It is clear that his behaviour has not changed at all. It is filled with legalism, lack of responsibility, and otherwise potentially disruptive behaviour. No matter how many positive edits he has made (as he likes to go on about), he cannot healthily contribute to the encyclopaedia if he continues with the behaviour now exemplified in those draft requests. I do not think that someone in his situation, showing no sign of remorse or acknowledgement of the problems that led to his blocking, should be teaching other editors how to edit, as the Snowman below has noted. Therefore, I oppose unblocking. RGloucester — ☎ 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unblock, retain posting restrictions If you derive employment by editing wikipedia (or training) you should be extra careful in how you edit. I have no objections to thawing the restictions for the duration of the training session, but would much rather prefer Martinvl to have mounted a sucecessful unblock campaign as we're now on a slippery slope of "What use is a block if there's more exceptions to the policy than swiss cheese?" Once the training session is complete I'd like to see the block put back in place and a WP:GAB modeled rehabilitation occur. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose unblock – Unblock for only the training period, retain topic ban - Editor should be temporarily unblocked on his regular account but only use it for training-related activities. A search of admin noticeboards shows a huge amount of trouble due to this editor in the past. He got into one dispute after another about measurement systems. The mere passage of time is not enough to put this behind us. See a permanent unblock request which Martinvl originally posted July 3, but later withdrew. (You will need to open the collapse box to see the draft appeal). The tone of that request shows that the issues were far from stale as of July 2014. Without a change of attitude it is hard to see a permanent unblock request being successful at this time. EdJohnston (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC). Changing my opinion after more thought. If Martinvl wants to help out with training he should first convince the community to grant a permanent unblock. At present that seems unlikely to be granted. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose unblock for any purpose Even his recent drafts of an "unblock" fail completely to meet wP:GAB - he continues to deny he ever did anything to deserve a block. He most certainly should NEVER be training anyone, anywhere on anything to do with Wikipedia - might as well elect a Lutheran to be Pope. Someday, when Martin successfully returns to the fold, he can return to training, etc. Until then, he sets a horrid example the panda ₯’ 20:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to admit that I'm troubled by the framing of the request. Apparently, Martinvl's difficulties are entirely the fault of other people – "...I am currently subject to an indefinite block given by User:Drmies and a topic ban given by User:TParis. These sanctions are the result of an ANI lodged by User:Wee Curry Monster..." – and he has nothing to say about his own conduct in the past, or about his intended actions in the future. Martinvl's request fails to provide any context or background, without which it is impossible to offer an informed response. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support appeal. I have not yet read the draft unblock request, but if I am read his block log correctly, then the blocks he was subject to for this topic ban went from 48 hours to indefinite, and as indefinite is not meant to mean infinite giving someone a second chance after a year would be a reasonable thing to do. I don't see any reason not to give him this second chance, but would retain the topic ban until he demonstrated extended compliance with it (requiring a separate appeal after at least 3 months). I would also make the unblock conditional on not edit warring anywhere, not just in the banned topic, with the penalty being a 1 year block. This would mean that if he returned to his old ways he would be liable to be bocked immediately. I do not see any reason to restrict his use of a separate training account if he wishes to use one. Full disclosure: I am also a trained trainer for Wikimedia UK and may be involved in one or more of these training events if I'm required and available. I do not recall having trained alongside Martinvl though. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The answer to this is that he was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring on ANI, in attempt to set up a section that only he was allowed to edit. This was before consensus was found for the topic ban. Three days (and two appeals) after being topic banned he was indeffed for disruptive editing. Though he did violate the topic ban in those three days (and I would contend that he has done so since), he has not actually been blocked for any topic ban violation per se. Kahastok talk 16:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose with proxy to Cardy and other organizers. I'm troubled by the request; it's an interesting twist on block evasion. It would be better if Martinvl got his own house in order before training others. Yes, it is sad that diminishes a WP investment in training a trainer. The form of User:Jonathan Cardy (WMUK)'s invitation is not specified. Was it a personal request or a form letter to a mailing list? Having stated objections, I will bend here. I'll give my proxy to Cardy and other event organizers (none of whom have commented here?). If any state the need to have Martinvl at the events despite the baggage, then Martinvl can be unblocked for those events. Glrx (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Glrx, good point: I wonder if the pings to WereSpielChequers, Jhayward001, Richard Nevell (WMUK), and Liz McCarthy went through correctly, because it seems to me that if Martin is supposed to do something for them, they would have an interest in his being able to actually do anything. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          Hello Drmies. The notification from yesterday came through, but oddly not the one in the initial post on this page.

          On 1 September Wikimedia UK emailed its trained trainers with details of opportunities to volunteer at the four events Martinvl mentioned. The charity has some 37 trainers who have been through an accreditation process and help at events, with a further group of unaccredited volunteers who also help out. Martin is one of the accredited trainers and has previously helped train new editors at WMUK events before his block.

          Wikimedia UK isn’t seeking to influence blocks or topic bans, so I cannot offer an opinion on the matter. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Oppose unblock. Declaring involvement. Martin does not demonstrate any understanding of the reasons for his block, and his request puts the blame for his block firmly on other editors rather than with his own behaviour. For clarity, those issues were described at the time by an uninvolved editor as "tendentious editing, lack of collegiality and collaborative spirit, battleground attitude, IDHT and extreme Wikilawyering". Looking through his talk page (including collapsed sections) will show ample evidence that the issues that existed last year are still in evidence. Ultimately, it is better for the community if blocked means blocked.
      There is a question of his suitability as a trainer. While Martin declares such discussion "does not come within the remit of English Wikipedia", I think it is an important point to consider as I doubt that WMUK would want to disregard community opinion on the subject, even if it is formally free to ignore our conclusions. I would question the viability and logic in allowing indeffed editors training others to edit.
      I would note that several people have said that we should maintain the topic ban after any unblock. I agree. Note that the topic ban is currently slated to end on 25 October - in about six weeks' time. If we leave it as-is, it's basically useless in assessing how viable his return to such topics is. We should extend it to indef, with appeals allowed in the normal way after 3-6 months of productive editing after any unblock. Kahastok talk 16:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Gringoladomenega

      User:Gringoladomenega is evading block with IP 187.4.212.34. See Munir El Haddadi, Sevilla FC, Denis Suárez. SLBedit (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      IP blocked. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Closure of RFC on main image of upcoming DYK

      I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Closure_of_RFC_on_main_image_of_upcoming_DYK, but I will leave one here too. treats! is going on the main page in a little over 24 hours. It has an WP:RFC regarding its main image that has been waiting for closure at WP:ANRFC since August 31.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      It seems it was closed without any note being left at the DYK discussion. Apologies.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      It would have been helpful if either note had actually linked to the RFC. GoldenRing (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      HistMerge needed

      Wangath Temple complex and User:Ambar wiki/Wangath Temple complex --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

       Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      PD undeletion request

      Image:Whitehorse1.jpg was deleted in 2007, due to an invalid fair use rationale. The artist, Eric Ravilious, died in 1942, so the image should now be PD. Please can someone undelete it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Restored to wiki and "70" template added. Nice picture Victuallers (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you - I love his work. Perhaps pics deleted under such circumstances should be logged on lists by year of artist's death? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know if we do that here, but they do at Commons; see Commons:Category:Undeletion requests. For example, Commons:Category:Undelete in 2073 contains deletion requests for images that will come into the public domain in their home countries in 2073 if their copyright laws don't change. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Sometime, somewhere, the children of our children will be old and croaking and still get this through the commons bureacracy. KonveyorBelt 15:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Cut and paste move

      I have fixed MediaWiki:Articleexists/en-gb; the C&P move has been fixed already. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Brighton and Hove Built-up Area looks like a cut and paste move of Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton. Could someone wave their magic wand to carry the history over? Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      I've just reverted the redirect. There was only one edit at the new title, so I don't think a history merge is required. I've notified the editor and told them to use the WP:RM process. Number 57 22:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I was really hoping that the history would be moved - now it can't be moved simply. Oh well. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      How do I request a move? The "move page" feature gives no help at all when it says the page can't be moved. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, think I've found it. user friendly it isn't. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I've just checked the message - it's quite clear in the big red text (see MediaWiki:Articleexists). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      I've asked at WP:VPP how to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That probably should've been WP:VPT; anyways, I have fixed MediaWiki:Articleexists/en-gb and confirmed it now display the intended message. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Request warning to be expunged

      Last week, I left some comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment regarding the context when evaluating whether a word is offensive. Several users replied to me in my section against the instructions. First time in my section, Second time in 'uninvolved admin' section, Third time in unvinvolved admin section, 4th time in my section I left a comment asking the Morons to stay out of my section. I was rightfully counseled by Sandstein regarding conduct in Arbcom cases per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Decorum, however, Sandstein also inappropriately logged my case first as part of the Manning dispute and then as part of sexology. Ironic that I had just been discussing context. My comments were in the context of Arbcom instructions and had nothing at all to do with Manning, TERFs, or Sexology in general. I believe it is an inappropriate log and I'd like it expunged or moved to a more appropriate place/case. I discussed this with Sandstein a week ago and he disagreed. I gave it a week to cool down, now I seek appeal per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications #2: Administrator's noticeboard.--v/r - TP 22:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • I agree with you TParis, the bad behaviour was outside the scope of Sexology and Manning naming dispute. A case of rudeness but not going against arbcom sanctions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sanctioning admin's comment: I recommend that this appeal is declined. I warned TParis for disparaging others as "morons" in the context of a dispute at WP:AE about the Chelsea Manning transgender/naming issue, in application of WP:AC/DS#Decorum and also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology#Discretionary sanctions, which, as clarified by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable, apply to "any dispute regarding the (...) manner of referring to (...) Chelsea/Bradley Manning". For these reasons, TParis's conduct at issue is within the scope of discretionary sanctions. I originally considered a block, which would also have been logged, but then decided that a warning was a sufficient sanction. Because TParis does not contest that the sanction was appropriate on the merits, there are no policy grounds for removing it from the log; such logging is even explicitly mandated by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Discretionary sanctions applicable.  Sandstein  06:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Disproportionate for a single outburst of incivility. I think that it is out of scope, as his "morons" comment pertains primarily to procedure rather than content: he is scolding others for not following protocol, not belittling their arguments related to transgender issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support I have all the respect in the world for Sandstein. However, this one was such a bad read of the sanctions and the situation. I watched this discussion take place on Sandstein's talkpage, and I honestly believed that "changing his mind" was going to be the obvious decision. It didn't happen, and I was quite surprised. Yes, you need to be fairly firm in ArbEnforcement. Yes, you need to be fairly sure of your decisions, and stick by them. At the same time, yes, anyone can make an actual mistake, and yes - change your mind without showing weakness. the panda ₯’ 08:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support The comments were unfortunate, but certainly not this user's typical communication style. Also, this was in the context of an ArbCom case and not a content dispute, so it does not belong under the rubric of discretionary sanctions. At this point, a simple informal reminder not to let oneself become irritated by irritating individuals would be more appropriate. Indeed, we all need to be reminded of that on a daily basis here. I would also encourage the use of the arbitration committee's clerks as a buffer, and ask them to move out-of-process postings in these situations--that's what they're there for. —Neotarf (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment This all seems kind of moot. I thought the only functional difference between "Discretionary sanctions" and the regular kind, was that DS could be enacted by admins without a warning (as long as the editor involved clearly knew the sanctions were in effect). This "sanction" being discussed is a "warning". It doesn't matter if it stays or goes, or whether it was merited or not, because any theoretical DS on any theoretical future actions by the involved editor wouldn't need evidence of an existing "warning". This could be moved to "notified" and it would have the same net effect.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's actually in the case history, and I don't understand the reason for that. I thought the reason for the notification system was to make it publicly invisible, especially to trolling. The biggest difference, as I understand it, is that if this is logged under an Arbcom case, it becomes a matter for WP:AE, not WP:AN, and therefore under the jurisdiction of Sandstein, who is well known for his unusually literalistic interpretations. —Neotarf (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Renaming account without user intervention

      Is it possible to request a rename of an account without the user having to log in and do it themselves? Let's say that someone wrote to OTRS requesting that a now blocked account with their company name that was created "without authorization" (snicker) be deleted. They see it in Google and panic. So we tell them to log in, request unblock and request rename. They say they can't. Is there a process for this type of thing? §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Even if it's not normally done, but it's a clear corporate username/role account and it's clear from the OTRS that the person requesting the account "deletion" is an agent of the company, I don't see why this shouldn't be granted. Call it a IAR-based action if need be. If it's not obvious that it's a company role account, then at worst we should consider courtesy blanking the user talk page or something. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      At the very least, I suppose it is very reasonable to NOINDEX the relevant page(s). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      That's probably a good compromise solution. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 05:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      In fact, we shouldn't even require proof if the account has no substantial non-deleted edits. There is no attribution issue here, and the only obstacle to renaming is the entitlement for someone to keep their desired username, but in this case they had no right to the username in the first place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably this discussion belongs at BN. I would say if there is verification from a company agent we could rename it in the same manner as impersonation accounts. That said, we are moving to a global rename regime and Stewards might have to be consulted because we wouldn't only be acting on the local enwiki account anymore. –xenotalk 11:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will stewards soon be the only ones able to perform renames? I figured the global rename thing would still permit local bureaucrats to perform them, as long as the desired target didn't already exist. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, both Stewards and meta:Global renamers are able to perform global renames. –xenotalk 17:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • The short answer is no, local renames will not be possible anymore. We want to move towards having a truly global login system, and the nature of the system we have means that performing local renames actively detracts from that possibility. Local rename is a major reason why we don't have a global system right now. So if someone wants to have two different names on two different wikis, then that's fine, but they'll have to have two different global accounts. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • So what will bureaucrats be able to do? Just granting-and-removing userrights such as admin and bot? Of course I understand that our bureaucrats have responsibilities such as closing RFAs, but anyone's able to do that; I'm just asking about their technical abilities. Nyttend (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      @Xeno: Thank you! They have not requested that yet, and I've been simply telling them to go the normal route, but this happens fairly often and I was wondering if it could be done at all. I'll make sure to use the 'crat board instead when and if they do. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      About Bluff Europe

      Hi all. Looks like I've created a Circular redirect when moving Draft:Bluff Europe to Bluff Europe. Could someone much smarterer than me fix the horrible mess I've made of this? (I've skipped the "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" step, as I don't think I need to tell myself I've thoroughly borked things up, yet again.) Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Actually, it was really simple. The two visible edits needed to be deleted, while all of the deleted edits needed to be visible. I just deleted everything and then restored everything except for the two that had previously been visible. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Civility Violation

      Tachfin broke some rules, such as:

      1. Offended me directly, not meeting civility code of conduct for being a sock muppet, making this a personal attack and named me as a conspiracy."Wikipedia AfD".
      2. It's recommended that he assume good faith for new contributors and exhorting them to get better instead of attacking me (us)

      Maromania also felt accused."Acussing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fevrret (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Do you mean this? Crazynas t 02:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, as stated above, I felt directly offended by Tachfin. Crow also is agree with the offense [2].

      I never knew that the Jim Henson crew was into editing Wikipedia. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 04:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      What do you (User:Scottywong) mean by this.

      Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review

      A Request for Comments was opened at Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#RfC:_Should_we_change_article_name_to_.27Judaism_in_Nepal.27.3F, asking whether to rename the article to Judaism in Nepal. I closed the RFC on 12 August 2014 with a finding that there was consensus for the renaming, and renamed the article:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#RfC:_Should_we_change_article_name_to_.27Judaism_in_Nepal.27.3F

      By way of history, there had been an AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal.

      The consensus had been KEEP, but there had been suggestions to rename the article, because the association between Nepal and Judaism is modern, consisting mostly of Israeli tourism, rather than traditional.

      There was then a deletion review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_June_30

      The deletion review endorsed the keep.

      On 10 September, User:IZAK undid the move: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHistory_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal&diff=624882523&oldid=620856115

      IZAK argues that the DRV should have halted the renaming RFC. (I don’t know why the DRV should have halted the RFC.) User:Ubikwit rebuked IZAK, and attempted unsuccessfully to reverse the renaming. IZAK is now claiming, on his own talk page, that the move was based on “fraud and trickery” and “smoke and mirrors”.

      I request a review of the RFC close and resolution of the article title. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • NOTE: That the RFC close was tainted from the get-go because instead of waiting for an uninvolved user or admin to close it (while the RFC started on the 30th of June 2014 and the DRV started a day later on the 1st of July 2014, yet the RFC was instead unjustifiably held over for over a month until the the 12th of August 2014! after the close of the correct prompt close of the DRV on the 8th of July 2014) leaving the RFC moot that was then incorrectly closed [3] by an involved user, namely User:Robert McClenon [4] who already in the AFD made his POV known to "Keep or Move/Rename". It is now this same involved user who wishes to impose a decision he made acting as both a voter in the AFD as well as the closer of the RFC when he should have left well-enough alone and based on the AFD that he knew about (because he was involved in it) and the subsequent DRV that endorsed the original AFD decision. IZAK (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Response by IZAK

      Main pages: History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30, and Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal

      Surprisingly this relatively minor and unimportant article has nevertheless been the center of contention for some time by a few editors who are hell bent on getting it deleted and failing that melting its title and content down to the lowest point of content and significance, see User:Ubikwit's recent rash of merciless choppings that I have just reversed [5]. Seems that some people just don't like the notion of Jews in far-off exotic Nepal! There is no other reason to justify such vehement opposition to the article all the time. In the process a few editors including myself [6] and users Pharos (talk · contribs) & Ravpapa (talk · contribs) & Gidonb (talk · contribs) & Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs) and a few others have spent a good amount of time adding WP:N & WP:V & WP:RS that are WP:NPOV. Yet ONE user Ubikwit (talk · contribs) stands in relentless and obsessive opposition to EVERYTHING and EVERYONE waging a one man WP:WAR & WP:BATTLEGROUND against this article never tiring of various maneuvers and excuses to keep attacking the article for some unknown thus far inexplicable reason. My efforts to defend the article and stop it from being erroneously labelled and degraded are being questioned by him as he wages the never-ending war against the article, in the process now trying to kill the messenger because he hates the message. Let me be clear and re-state what I have pointed out very clearly at:

      1. Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#History of the Jews in Nepal: For some or other odd reason many people do not understand that for many, Israel and Israelis are very secular and thus have nothing to do with Judaism! Israel is the Jewish state but the majority of its Jews do not adhere to Judaism. So it is absurd to make this into an article about "Judaism" when the Israelis do not practice it and often know nothing about it. In addition this article also discusses topics not related to Judaism, such as Islamic terrorists targeting of Jews that has nothing to do with Judaism as such. Thus Jewish history is the correct all-inclusive nomenclature for this article just as it is for virtually all articles about "History of the Jews in ____" in Category:Jewish history by country. Finally WP:CONSENSUS at both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal (AFD) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (DRV) clearly established that this article remains as History of the Jews in Nepal.
      2. User talk:IZAK#Illegitimate move of "Judaism in Nepal" & Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#Out of confusion is illegitimacy born: @Ubikwit: The majority of LEGITIMATE WP:CONSENSUS is on the side of History of the Jews in Nepal based on the 9 Keep votes (versus 6 Deletes) at the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal and the 14 Keep votes (versus the 8 Deletes) (I tried to count them as best I could) at the DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30. The RFC you refer to is OUT OF ORDER because it was started on 30 June 2014 and closed on 12 August 2014 during which time the official DRV was opened on the same day (by you) on 30 June 2014 and closed on 8 July 2014 that should have shut off the DRV or at least made it moot and irrelevant, but it got dragged out for over another month and half, not taking into account that it was put out of business by the DRV, and then just by dint of laziness and lack of attention or just ignorance on the part of the closer, the RFC was left open just long enough for just 5 votes to Support the RFC versus 2 Opposing since the majority of users would have seen the notice on 1 July 2014 Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#DRV that the main debate was moved over to the DRV: "There is now an official WP:Deletion review, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30#History of the Jews in Nepal". Trickery and fraud does not create "consensus" and results that are illegitimate have no validity. So cut the bull, and make sure that you do not get blocked for supporting such illogical, irrational and illegal "decisions"!
      3. User talk:IZAK#Illegitimate move of "Judaism in Nepal" & Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#Out of confusion is illegitimacy born: @Robert McClenon: Thanks for asking. User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) knows full-well that the HE opened a request for a DRV the SAME day the RFC was started, (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30). Ubikwit LOST his DRV gamble. I even posted a notice as such on the article's talk page right below the request for RFC (see Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#DRV). It is now Ubikwit that escalates the discussion by threatening me and by citing a totally out of order RFC when he knows (or should know) that he is himself out of order! The formal DRV settled the matter of the naming of the article as "History of the Jews in Nepal" once and for all by an overwhelming majority. Yet the RFC lingered for more than a month after the DRV was closed. You should have been aware that the DRV had shut off the RFC debate, and I am assuming you simply were not aware of what was going on, that the RFC was old and had been settled by other means (i.e. the DRV), unlike Ubikwit who comes along and screams his head off as if the RFC is "holy writ" when in fact the DRV had already settled the matter. The net result, is that the decision to move based on the RFC alone is illegitimate and in practical effect amounts to a sleight of hand arrived at by smoke and mirrors.

      Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=625062266"