text:
2012 (UTC)
 * The logical solution would obviously be to reinstate the semi-protection once the full protection has expired. I take it you're specifically looking for a technical peripheral where you can fully protect an article for a specified period of time, and upon its expiration will revert to semi-protection until a pre-determined date? I'm thinking it might actually be a good idea to speak with the developers about exploring the ramifications of enabling such a feature.  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 01:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 * It is manual Zippy. I'm guessing they are different states of the same bit, not different bits, so you are changing the state, not adding a new state.  That comes up all too often, actually, and you have to remember to check back later,  read the log, apply the semi-protection back, etc.  It is not an optimal system. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 13:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the replies. I thought it might be manual; that's annoying. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry Notice
I have already reported User:J77890 in the sock investigation archive of User:Mughal Lohar here. But no action has been taken from last two days. Request for a quick action. Milescoast.wiki (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because you edited the archive and nobody noticed. If you have evidence of sockpuppetry, please file a case at WP:SPI. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Votes, anyone? Please read!
I'm posting this here because this is one of Wikipedia's most public pages, and there's not really a general community noticeboard, at least as far as I know. I'm not trying to canvass; what I'm doing is kind of like relisting an AfD discussion and linking to it in a very public place so a consensus can be reached. I'm holding a vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in all of Wikipedia's history, but only one editor has voted in almost a month. See here: Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun. I just want people to vote, that's all. Thank you. C h r o m a Nebula  (talk)   02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more appropriate to post this over at the village pump. You could also post it over on Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars.—Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 05:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Help needed
Rather than post this at several noticeboards, I was wondering if an administrator could help with the vandalism described at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. A number of editors, it seems have been doing some tag-team vandalism. At least, it looks like vandalism - it involves page moves and creating purposely ambiguous categories, in an effort to make University of Newcastle (Australia) take precedence over University of Newcastle (disambiguation). The cut and paste moves have been reverted, but I was wondering if anyone could do a speedy merge of the recently created Category:University of Newcastle into Category:University of Newcastle (Australia). I ask this here because there is no such thing as a speedy merge at WP:CFD (only speedy moves), and a category created by vandals shouldn't have to go through a long process in order to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that there is also a thread on this at ANI. --Rschen7754 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/StuRat
I wanted to nominate StuRat, as I am impressed with his answers. but, he hasn't responded to this nomination (And, his contributions show that he has seen notification on talk page) Therefore I am asking any admin to delete that page. Thank you. GiantBluePanda (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked on his talk page for him to explicitly accept or decline the nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Java code to stop me from logging in
Hello. Please, place in the java code that stops me from logging in for at least two years. I want to go on a break.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that such a thing exists. However there are a few admins, including myself, who are willing to consider self-requested blocks. My conditions for doing so are rather limited, you can see them at User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming that Kazemita1 meant to say "javascript", there is a temporary wikibreak enforcing script that can be placed in one's common.js here. →Σ σ ς . 22:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is indeed what I meant. Please, go ahead and do so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Enjoy your break, Kazemita1. Jafeluv (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request from Kmarinas86

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

filed an unblock request on UTRS. I believe this request would benefit from more input, so I'm placing it here with permission of the user in its entirety:
 * Why do you believe you should be unblocked?
 * I am sorry for disclosing personal information I disclosed about a certain individual, which I orginally intended to be a way to show that this person was not a shill. It upset me that this individual was being construed by another peson as someone that, in my opinion, he is not. What came after that I did not expect at all. The person who I was trying to establish correctly the identity of, surprisingly to me, did not appreciate what I did. Out of some sort of desperation, I lashed out at the other person who I felt was bearing false witness on this guy. Well, that is in the past, and I want to show that I can return to being the polite Wikipedia editor that I have been for years. Sincerely, Kevin Marinas
 * If you are unblocked, what articles do you intend to edit?
 * Raelism articles
 * Various math articles
 * Automation articles
 * other articles which I have edited in the past.
 * Is there anything else you would like us to consider when reviewing your block?
 * You may look at my previous edits on Wikipedia, which are many thousands. What I did as of recently was an abberation, partially carried from some real life problems with some family members, who don't feel confident about my financial risks that I have chosen to take with my present employer. This argumentative behavior caused me a kind of passing angst, because I do not regret the risks I have taken. I wish the best of my future relationship with the members of Wikipedia. Sincerely, Kevin Marinas

I know nothing of the case myself, so input from people who are more in the know would be welcome. I find the request in itself to be reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * works for me. Unblock

. Nobody Ent 01:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with an unblock if the user realises that what he did was wrong (which he seems to). — foxj 14:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Same here. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with foxj. — Ched :  ? 15:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with the user being unblocked. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I've unblocked them, this is more discussion than most unblock requests ever get, and we've got the blocking admin agreeing to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-admin edits to Wikipedia:List of banned users
For discussion - there is not currently any ban or protection on non-administrator edits to the list of banned users. Obviously much mischief over long term scales could be caused by misinformation there, and its more than usually sensitive to conflict behaviors.

Should we be considering protection at some level? Or is watchlist monitoring "enough"? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would consider watchlist monitoring. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No need for non-admins to edit that page. Full protect it. Administrators can update it at the same time as they close the discussion that results in the ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Adminship is only extra tools not any special trust. Why would you full protect a page and encourage such a position? Adminship is no big deal. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I would think that it would be an admin only page, although I don't know if there is a hard rule, simply because blocks and ban determination tend to be admin functions, and it is easy to make a good faith mistake. It is about accountability.  And IP, quoting Jimbo on "not a big deal" doesn't make it true.  This is one of the biggest websites in the world, so there is some responsibility involved and required.  Quoting that is very 2002 of you.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * (ec) Well what is the page? Is it a list of banned users, or is it a place to add whatever thought you want to add about a particular banned user on a particular day? If it's just a list of banned users, then only administrators can close a discussion with that outcome, so their editing the list should be fine. If it's a "let's say bad things about people" place, then why is it there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

All right. First of all, I would like to owe everyone a sincere apology for my unintentional personal attack on the banned users page. I am fully aware of the no personal attack policy, and I believe it was a good faith mistake on my part, and I did not intend to break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. Now, if I would consider either full protection or watchlist monitoring, I think watchlist monitoring may be a necessary measure in this matter, because as User:Dennis Brown pointed out to me, it is probably not really a good page for a non-admin to edit only because of the potential ramifications of an improper addition to this page, and that would be a very easy mistake to make. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I only think this list should be kept in orderly fashion. If user X was banned, there should be an official closing of the banning discussion by an uninvolved administrator. Then, a simple notice that user X was banned, with appropriate links and conclusion made by the closing administrator should be included in the list. Such records would be fully consistent with policy. But most records in the list are just fine, so I do not see any pressing problems out there. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This looks like a solution in search of a problem. In the absence of any history of serious vandalism or mischief on the page, having a number of admins and long-term editors add it to their watchlist would seem to be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * There's no reason to restrict this page to admins-only. It's just like any other page. Maybe more admins need to watch it. Keep the permanent semi-protection if you must, and don't restrict it from the other good-faith editors who help out the comparatively miniscule admin force (who can't be everywhere all the time). Doc   talk  06:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doc9871, there is no reason to restrict the page to administrator only. It's a list of banned editors, something that can be easily verified by checking the blocked user and adjusting the page for administrators and non-administrators alike. In fact, as it seems the number of active administrators is slowly growing smaller, this actually compounds the problem. Regards, — Moe  ε  09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to restrict ths to admins only. I do think that semi protection is necessary here, but not full. In fact, there is one reason for non-admins to edit this, and that is to remove reports of expired bans. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper response to an erroneous edit is to revert it. The page exists to provide a certain link location to actual ban statements, no significant harm comes from a transiently incorrect entry. Given the shortage of active admins, we should only require admins to do actual admin functions, not gnome stuff. Nobody Ent 16:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * If this came through as a request at WP:RFPP (which is currently backlogged by the way) my reaction would be Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.. Semi seems warranted, but this one minor incident, for which the user has already apologized, does not warrant full indef protection. Disruption would have to be pretty severe to justify that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that this isn't protected. Why would non-admins need to edit this list? It's not like the page has a backlog.—Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly because of the reasons I mentioned in the remark immediately preceeding yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * There should absolutely not be any restrictions againt non-admins editing that page. Non-admins should be allowed to edit any page at Wikipedia and do any task which does not require the admin tools.  That is, unless it needs to be deleted, protected, or blocked, there is no compelling reason to arbitrarily exclude non-admins from any task.  -- Jayron  32  04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan
I'd like to notify the board that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning. The RFC/U can be read at Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to note, it appears tempers over this issue are heated on all sides. If any admins are willing to keep an eye on the RfC/U, it might be helpful. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC) (I am involved in the RfC)
 * I see it .. I just don't know where to even start. — Ched :  ? 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where else has this been cross-posted? Forum-shopping? Secretlondon (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Forum shopping is going to different areas hoping for a different result. This was pointing editors to the RFC/U, I wouldn't consider that forum shopping. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well he's promoted it on AN too, where it got quickly closed. Secretlondon (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I thought you were talking about the notification, not the discussion. Ryan Vesey 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Extraneous, yes. Bad-faith, definitely no.  Both the notice here and the notice at WP:ANI are basically "Hey, this RFCU has been started; please offer your input", and because both WP:AN and WP:ANI are read by people who hold all points of view on this RFCU, he's clearly not trying to stack the deck in favor of one position.  Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been informed that a link to the RFC/U is automatically transcluded onto this page and AN/I so the notification was extraneous after all. Apologies for that. I'll know better next time (though hopefully there won't need to be a "next time"). Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: More than ten editors were notified of the RfC/U by Prioryman on the basis that they had disputes with YRC. In addition to noticeboard posts about it. The RfC/U rules require they be about a single dispute and I suggested at the RfC/U that notifiying a large number of people looks a great deal like vote-stacking at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim that I notified them "on the basis that they had disputes with YRC" is false. I have already told you here that I notified only those whom I mentioned in my opening statement, precisely as the third bullet of WP:CANVASS requires, and solely so that they could review and correct any misrepresentation of their involvement. Numerous other editors have already stated that there was no canvassing and the certification comments make it clear that the dispute concerns a long-running pattern of behaviour, not a single incident. You know all of this perfectly well and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we close this here and confine the dispute(s) to the RfC itself at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"var authorId =" in thousands of refs

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

- a glitch in about 12,600 articles, because of a reckless editing by sume users. I just thought, maybe some bot could be used to clenup up this mess? Sometime it's var authorId = "" by, sometimes it's var authorId = "[various numbers]" by . --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Must be something to do with the Reflinks script: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artix_Entertainment&diff=501219180&oldid=501219041. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * And just reckless editing, because some users are just ignoring the script's own guidelines to first check if everything is okay, before saving ("When done, click the "show preview" button at the bottom of the page. If things look OK, then click the "save page" button. If things don't look OK, then fix what needs to be fixed in the preview edit window.")  - and also ignoring me telling to start doing it. But it's over 12,000 articles already and something needs to be done about it. --Niemti (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Whoever caused the problem could presumably use the same script to fix it. Alternately, it seems lime a task for someone with WP:AWB skills. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * What is the correct? I could do it using AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I think it was User:Derek R Bullamore. As stated in his talk page, Derek uses the Reflinks tools in good faith. As such the "reckless editing" claims are unfounded in this case. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good faith or not, it is a mess that needs to cleaned up. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. I am going to help do the cleanup as well. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's "Resolved" yet, as according to Google it's about 12,700 now (that is, not only not any less but also actually 100 more than yesterday). --Niemti (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RevDer please

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This really needs to be rev deleted. First, because of the content itself, but secondly,  the default  edit summary is being repeated by anyone replying to it. Considering who's page it's appearing on (the summary and content ) it's very much inappropriate. I've already erased it from the page. Thanks "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Note who added it; I'm sure he's capable of deciding what he wants on his talk page. As you've been repeatedly warned, stop trying to act as the self-appointed Chief Censor of Wikipedia. Mogism (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Technically he just restored it after it was removed, which he is completely within his rights to do. Some people prefer to keep trolling instead of removing it, pointing it out again later only gives the troll exactly what they want, so let's not do that. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While Fae has made his wishes clear on the matter of keeping the vandalism in place, I think it may be a topic for the community to discuss whether it's appropriate to go with what Fae wishes here. My personal feeling is that for the good of the encyclopedia and that of others in the vulnerable classes being insulted in those comments, they ought not to be preserved. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better for both the project and Fae in the long term if that filth was expunged from the talk page, followed by a semi protection at least. Allowing this sort of grave dancing serves no legitimate purpose, and it's demeaning to the entire project. — Coren (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't really disagree with either of those perspectives, and if this had been handled with the discretion usually expected of requests for revdel it would probably be done already. Unfortunately we've got a Streisand effect situation here now, if anyone wants to revdelete it they should probably remove this thread as well in order to reduce the attention paid to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he almost wants it there. I'm not happy that he's editing and commenting on it. Secretlondon (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Inappropriate material should be removed. Editors have a lot of lattitude in their user space, but no page belongs to a user and trolls should not have a haven where their diatribes are retained. Given the background, it is not reasonable to ask for the user's agreement regarding a cleanup—it would be better for the community to simply apply normal standards. I won't promote the trolling by repeating offending comments, but the post at "04:43, 27 January", and all the similar junk, should be removed (including the two "Your Recent Edits" sections—see the poster's user name). Perhaps just archive the page? Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Its sometimes a good thing that a record of attacks persist so that others can more easily see what is going on. While it is certainly reasonable to revert such content in the first instance, where the sole editor targeted by the attack has chosen to restore it, and leave it as evidence of what is happening to them, their wishes should be respected. It is not appropriate to white wash what is really going on, at least if the victim doesn't want it. Monty  845  17:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true — which is why we have diffs. I am not convinced of the benefits of leaving egregiously offensive material like that out in the open, and am reluctant to trade in a user's right to edit their own talk page to restablish grave-dancing and other highly unacceptable behaviour like that. At any rate, the page has been fully protected and redirected. Banned users shouldn't be editing their talk page anyway: a ban is a ban from editing whatsoever. The only reason the technical ability for blocked users to edit their talk page was enabled is to allow them to appeal their block, which obviously doesn't apply here. WilliamH (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non-admin actions at RPP and RFPERM
Do we generally allow editors who are not admins to decline requests at RPP and RFPERM? --Rschen7754 05:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Define "allow". Are they making decisions that the average "reasonable person" would not?  That is, if an admin had made the exact same action, would you object?  If you wouldn't, then you have no basis to object when a non-admin does it.  If you would object had an admin made the decline, then the basis for the objection is that the objection is faulty, not the status of who made it.  Either way, it doesn't matter who commits the action: if it is a good action it should stand regardless of who made it, and bad actions should be likewise dealt with regardless of who made them.  Since declined requests don't need the tools to enact, I see no problem in principle with any long-standing editor with a good standing in the community declining them. -- Jayron  32  05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion last week about declining unblock requests: Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238. The consensus was that non-admins should not be declining unblock requests to ensure that users are given a "fair hearing." --Rschen7754 05:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. I agree that non-admins should not be handling unblock requests, but that is because of the nature of the block itself.  Our default should always be "everyone can do it", and we should only careful restrict non-admins from doing tasks on a careful basis.  I agree with the crux of that discussion, as it applies specifically and only to that situation, because of what a "Block" is; unlike deletion and protection, the damage done by a poorly handled block (and that includes a poorly handled unblock request) are permanent.  The social problems of a block go way beyond a minor inconvenience, messing up a block one time will cause irrevocable damage to the relationships between the blocked person and the encyclopedia at large.  Not protecting a page that maybe should have been protected is not an issue.  If a few more vandalisms show up, it can always be protected later.  A declined unblock request is like a second door slammed in an editors face.   Not all mistakes are equal.  I don't really have any problem with a non-admin declining a protection request as I would with an unblock request.  So the fact that the community made that decision doesn't surpise me, and I endorse it.  However, I would vehemently oppose any further attempts to imply that admins get special access to most tasks that a non-admin could do; especially where the penalty for being wrong is trivial.  Let's rephrase this.  Show us a diff or diffs where you believe a specific person has made errors in judgement.  If you can't, this isn't a problem.  If you can, lets deal with that one person.  There's no need to set arbitrary rules just to have them. -- Jayron  32  06:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The arguements are precisely the same: since a non-admin cannot protect a page or authorize a new permission, they should not be declining one either. As was said in the previous discussion "Never take a 'No' from someone who is not authorized to give a 'Yes'."  Were I turned down for either of these by a non-admin, I would have restored the request immediately, since the closer had no authorization to answer "yes".  That's not what we want, we want a close to be a close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * An editor who puts in a good faith request for permission is, IMO, entitled to have his request reviewed and determined by an administrator. Besides, RFPERM is hardly overburdened. T. Canens (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Just a note: before I got rather tied up with an aggressive defense, I was soliciting input on WT:RFPERM in order to determine a) non-admin "clerking" requirements, and b) what limitations those "clerks" would be working under. More input from admins would probably be good there. dangerous panda  11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I've recently been working at RFPP after not doing so for quite a while. The new thing I am seeing there is "clerk notes." They will comment on a request but usually don't actually close it. As an admin I am responsible for investigating the need for protection myself so I can't say I find that particualry helpful, but it does no harm either. I would disagree with expanding the concept of non-admin closures to request for permissions or protection. Unlike AFD, most of these are not community discussions where what is needed is a correct interpretation of consensus. These are requests for specific admin actions and admins are vetted by the community based on their perceived ability to make such decisions. It is only fair to the person making the request that a user who is properly vetted in that manner and has the technical ability to grant the request be the one to make the call. That is why have admins in the first place, if it was just a matter of robotically responding to requests based on some formula we woildn't need admins to make these decisions. Hell, we wouldn't even need real people, a bot could do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with T. Canens and Beeblebroz - editors are looking for a review by an administrator and should be given a reponse by an administrator. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Admins are just regular editors with extra tools. If an action can be performed by an editor without additional permissions, the default should always be that they are permitted to perform it. If you request a response from an administrator, and a non-admin gives you the correct response, whats the problem? That said, Unblock requests are different, most other times if you dispute a quasi administrative action by a non-admin, you have a variety of ways to request review, such as raising the issue with them on their talk page, or heading to AN/I. Blocked editors have no such ability, and so its particularly important that they not be on the receiving end of a bad non-admin action. Likewise there is clear consensus that the rules at WP:NAC apply to closes of deletion discussions. But otherwise, until clear consensus to the contrary is developed, the default should remain that no permission is required. If there are specific editors taking bad quasi-admin actions, they should be individually corrected. Monty  845  17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone saying permission is required. I think the point is that the non-admins cannot directly act on the requests so any "commentary" is simply the non-admin spending their volunteer time in an unproductive exercise.  I can see the possibility that an admin may overlook something important in a request; at that point input from others would be helpful, from any party.  Tide  rolls  18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the comments above suggest that a non-admin may not reject certain things, for instance an RFP request. In other words you can't do it without the admin right. I'm disagreeing and saying that be default any editor can. Sorry if there was any confusion from my use of permission instead of userright. Monty  845  18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Requests for admin actions should be responded to by persons who can actually fulfill the request and who have been vetted by the community to determine if they have the judgement necessary to make such decisions. anyone can comment on anything they like but they shouldn't present themselves as persons who can actually take action on the request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, "anyone can comment" leads to ridiculous comments like "I don't think this person should get it" (with no policy-based argument to follow), or worse ... or engaging a horrifically WP:COI/WP:PROMO editor with a WP:UAA violation over a period of 7 or 8 posts that sometimes just gets ugly. Non-admin comments in those locations need to be properly worked with in order to set expectations, and ensure quality of responses dangerous panda  18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is consensus that someone needs to be able to accept a request to reject it. Any editor can reject a CSD, only an admin can delete. Any editor can perform a WP:NAC keep close at AfD, only an admin can delete. It seems there is consensus in favor of allowing non admins to act in exactly the type of situations you object to. Why is an RFP request different? Also, if anyone shows up and says they don't think someone should get a permission, given how rare that is, it deserves investigation to determine if it is founded, even if the rationale isn't stated. Monty  845  19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read NAC again. Note how it specifically says that NACs are only appropriate in cases where there is an unambigous consensus. Requests for page protection are not discussions and adjudicating them does not require a consensus, it requires a proper understanding of the protection policy. Of course any responsible admin will take into account any good faith comments made by other users, but ultimately they are charged with actually making the decision to protect or not. This is because the community has explicitly said it trusts them to do so. The same cannot be said for self-appointed clerks. They may provide some extra detail or insight, but they are not entrusted by the community with the responsibility of making such decisions. We need to get it straight here, what is being asked is if we are going stretch the definition of NAC to include decisions currently not covered by that essay. And it  is an essay, not even a guideline, so cotiing it as an excuse to do something not even mentioned there is not going to cut it. If you wish to seek consensus for NA closes in other venues, open a proper RFC on the subject and ask the community, we can't just shoehorn it in based on a few comments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Check out Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive_91, where an RFC was held. While it was not formally closed, my reading of the consensus there was that it supported the broad use of NACs. Monty  845  05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Monty, if you ever raise anything like this again at the Village Pump, this board is the first place you should notify. ANI is for actions, this is for " issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Like non-Admin closures. The closure statement simply asks that the guidelines be clarified. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one that notified AN/I, and generally it should be enough to add an RFC tag, though that one was mentioned on WP:CENT as well.  Monty  845  06:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's 2 portions to this... First is the question about mop level activities (Blocking/Unblocking/Page protecting/Permissions/etc.) and the other is users opining on requests that do end up with a mop action. I know I've recently taken to trolling the Category:Requests for unblock for the purpose of trying to cut down on some of the bogus requests that get filed or to help get the appealing user the information they need to make a successful unblock.  As such I see it in the same vein of commenting on a WP:AIV or WP:RFPP request, to justify and help the administrator figure out what the community conesnsus is. This has the side benefit of helping me get a feel for the spirit of Wikipedia to ensure that some time in the future when I do decide to make a bid for the mop, my viewpoint won't be that far out of line.  I think I removed one "Request for Administrator" template from a blocked user's talk page because it was obvious to me that they were having a tantrum and not willing to work collaboratively.  I noted this in my response and waited for anybody else to revert the striking of the template to as to learn, but as far as I know, the action has not been reversed.
 * TLDR: Admins are busy. Having Gnomes/Clerks scurring around to help is not a bad thing. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed at WT: PERM. Non-admins are allowed to help out by confirmed, as many of the requests there do not actually require an admin. There are also a few admins who work in conjunction with non-admins at confirmed. Best, Electric Catfish 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC).

Troll needs a block
(no not me :)

This guy  he's repeatedly trolled  Pinthicket's  page with various garbage. He's gotten multiple warnings. He's not listening, so perhaps a block would be in order "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, someone's creating multiple disposable accounts

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

And then quickly abandoning them right after making a few edits, only to create another, repeat:
 * 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smoortsixe
 * 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Street_Kombat (brand new and specially created immediately after my edit, just to revert it)

I have no idea who may be really that, and I don't know about other such disposable accounts belonging to him/her but I guess there were lots of them and it's his/her standard practice, used also elsewhere (that is, in various other articles). Do with it what you want. --Niemti (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No. This person is adding unsourced material to articles and making personal insults. That is the issue. Street Kombat (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just because others remove your unsourced spam doesn't mean anything other than your edits are unconstructive, and unsourced. Street Kombat (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This should have been on WP:ANI. However, Niemti is adding unsourced WP:OR, and Street Kombat clearly is socking.  Both are edit-warring.  Block'em both dangerous panda  15:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly? I see something about Niemti here

Street Kombat (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * So? A past block log is not necessarily indicative of current behaviour.  Focus on your behaviour dangerous panda  15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Everyone involved is now blocked. (seem to be having trou le getting Twinkle to deliver the block notices though) Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User rights for the Education Program extension
Hi! I'm seeking feedback for the configuration of user rights on the revised version of the Education Program extension, which we're hopeful can be deployed in the next few weeks. The user rights configuration will be rearranged to avoid a Wikimedia staff role as bottleneck or control point for the user rights. Please take a look at the proposed configuration and give feedback. The nominal plan would be to have bureaucrats control the "Education Program administrator" flag, which would be the main right for controlling other user rights and administrative features within the new "Education Program:" namespace. Thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

(As the signature suggests, I'm now working for WMF. I'm essential the community liaison for the education program, so please feel free to bring related issues and frustrations to me. -Sage)

 * What administrative action or issue are you asking for? Do you realize that this board is for issues which require administrative review and action, not for general discussion? Simply because you work for the WMF (this is yet unproven) does not mean you can violate policies of the English wikipedia. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This page is for "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." In other words, issues that you'd like to bring to the notice of administrators as a group. The Education Program extension and its configuration is such an issue, and I don't see how my posting was inappropriate.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Again, this board is for administrative action, not for you to WP:canvass for support for your pet project. In addition your supposed position within the WMF is still uncertain. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Two points. The first is that the IP above, as well as the main account, have been blocked for WP:SCRUTINY reasons. This was done by other checkusers, but I think it only fair to note this. My second point is that I believe it's inappropriate for the WMF to create its own namespace on this project, and further to institute user rights over which this project has no control. This namespace is going to be used only for the administration of WMF-certified education programs. They have their own Outreach wiki to do this, making interwiki links where necessary. I can think of a few possible additional namespaces that this project might want to consider. Having a separate namespace, with its very own special user rights attached to it, for the purpose of administering a WMF program, is very far down the list of "good reasons for creating a new namespace" in my mind. Although this is probably a fait accompli, I will still point out that Wikipedia is not a hosting service, not even for the WMF.  I've also commented at the link added by Sage. Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This does seem a bit odd. As our policies extend to every portion of this site, are we to assume that our existing admins, functionaries,  new page patrollers, etc will be expected to do maintenance for this new namespace that has not been approved by the community? Just tacking on a whole new namespace without even asking us first seems like more muscle-flexing by the WMF. Why here? Why not their own wiki that they already have set up, as suggested by Risker?  Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See update here.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ivan Gašparovič
Please, protect the article of Ivan Gašparovič, because a noname user (here permanently deletes a sourced text from the article. Without discussion. Thanks forward. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to block both of you, and the reason I chose instead to levy full protection for 24 hours is that the IP, unlike you, was attempting to engage in sustained discussion. It would have helped had you heeded the big bold notice and notified the IP, whose talk page has never been created.  Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion to the question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Banner#Re:_Gasparovic_revision <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The offending section been removed, and the protected article, as it stands is better for it. However, once the protection is lifted, I assume the section will again be added. What can I do to ensure that changes are not reverted again?<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [Rearranged your comments for readability, but without changing anything] All I can say is that you need to obtain consensus, because discussion by itself is not enough to keep you from being blocked or the page from being protected with the content instead of without. Nyttend (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And where can I get this consensus? Whom must it include? <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You need to gain it at the talk page. Perhaps you could post a request for input at the talk page for the Slovakia Wikiproject?  Or perhaps the Slovak noticeboard?  Remember that any notices you post must be neutral, according to our canvassing policy; you're free to ask people to offer input (although please don't bombard lots of pages with requests), but you may not make a "Vote for my position" request.  Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have done so in the two pages you recommended. If I have not been neutral in representing the dispute, please feel free to rephrase it. If there is anything else I need to do, please let me know. I am a bit worried that the pages are dead, but perhaps it will be fruitful. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend
Hi, can you please take a look at User:Neogeolegend? This user has essentially created a nazi shrine, at Portal:Nazi Germany. He's also creating userboxes like Template:User interested in Nazi Germany in main template namespace (not saying it would be okay in user namespace) and has some other unacceptable content on his user page. --rtc (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What content on his homepage is unacceptable? Still reading contributions, but so far seems to be historical interest not advocacy.
 * If he is advocating somewhere please show us specific diffs. Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please take a close look. He is showing an exploding swastika, commenting "this user believes that removing history is destroying history itself". The meaning of this message is clear. The user shows the nazi flag in a userbox, commenting "This user is interested in Nazi Germany." It cannot be tolerated per WP:CIVIL that the nazi flag be shown, and such comments cannot be an excuse. The user has another userbox saying "This user admires Nazi Germany uniforms." Again, the message is as clear. I think any ambiguity that might be in these messages has been purposefully put into them to trick people into believing it is covered by policy, which I think it is clearly not. If you look at the portal, it clearly embraces and excessively uses nazi symbolism, colors, quotes, etc, instead of describing things in an encyclopedic and disassociative manner. Again, the portal purposefully tries to make things look ambiguous by having this anti nazi section, which cannot be any excuse at all for the rest of this propaganda portal. BTW, I'm not sure if he is advocating the nazis per se, rather than merely having an completely uncritical and naive view about them, but I think already making use of this kind of nazi symbolism in this almost obsessive manner, including the advocacy of such symbolism, is clearly disruptive and not WP:CIVIL. --rtc (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "I am offended by this" and "you must take action". You are clearly offended, and from a personal taste point of view for the sake of argument I agree, but he seems to me more of a historical fan than advocate or booster.  Good history, even of offensive things, requires dedicated historians focused on the topic.
 * I am not saying we won't act, but not without actual cause. Focus on finding that, if it's there.  We need an actionable policy or behavior problem to act.  Merely being offended is neither.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "The user has another userbox saying "This user admires Nazi Germany uniforms." Again, the message is as clear. " Yes, it is very clear - the Nazis wore damn sexy uniforms. Objectively the hottest ever worn. Doesn't make me a Nazi apologist for saying so, just means I'm a human with needs.. --Golbez (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2lKq794fII#t=1m20s --rtc (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. There is nothing particularly wrong with having an interest in Nazi Germany — I find it fascinating myself, and we need articles that cover the topic extensively. It's when someone starts professing such an ideology that it becomes something of an issue.  Master&  Expert ( Talk ) 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're writing about Nazi Germany, you're doing readers a disservice if you don't include some of the more prominent imagery; intentionally omitting the flag would be one of the best ways to damage the page, and its inclusion is not by itself a violation of WP:CIVIL. There's also a substantial difference between admiring Nazi uniforms and admiring those who commanded their wearers.  Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's no substantial difference. This is exactly the kind of ambiguity I'm talking about, which cannot be an excuse for this. "intentionally omitting the flag would be one of the best ways to damage the page"? Nonsense. No damage whatsoever is being done if users omit nazi flags from their home page, and stop using nazi symbolism on portals, instead showing such symbols only in an dissociative context for encyclopedical purposes. --rtc (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Find me the Wikipedia policy that permits censorship of topics from portals. Find me a scholarly consensus that says "If you admire someone's clothes, you admire his actions".  I just looked through a couple dozen portals for countries worldwide, and all of them included the current national flag.  Why should this one be different?  It's displaying the national flag that was current during the time in question.  The same is done for Portal:Austria-Hungary, and while no flag is displayed at the top of Portal:Soviet Union, we use a massive image of the country's coat of arms.  Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, the nazi flag, it's just a national flag, isn't it? Why should it be different? sorry, but are you kidding me? There is a reason why showing such symbols in any non-academic context is even against the law in many countries, which clearly means it is not civil to show them. Noone asks for censorship. The flag can clearly be shown in an appropriate context. Noone is contesting that. But it is completely unacceptable to make a nazi shrine in nazi style and symbolism. This is not using the nazi symbols for descriptive purposes, it is showing them as an end in itself. Is it so hard to understand?  --rtc (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As everyone except you has agreed, this is an appropriate context. Please read WP:HORSE and after that explain how it's any different to use the symbols of Iosif Dzhugashvili, which I already mentioned.  Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any real argument? "we are the majority" is not one of them. And no, you can't conclude anything about the truth of a statement from the fact that many believe in it. --rtc (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's the one I've already told you: that this is an appropriate context.  Here at Wikipedia, everything depends on consensus; we specifically have a page that discusses what's going on here.  Nyttend (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is clearly not an appropriate context. And I think you misunderstand consensus. It means everyone should try to come to an agreement, not that only everyone except one needs to and then the majority is right and the one is wrong. --rtc (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * What is going on here!!. Users talking about me! this is really great. Anyway, we can't remove the history, it has been a history and we should live with it. The portal created when I couldn't see any portal related to Nazi Germany article. The template which say "this user is interested in Nazi Germany", it shows my interest only. There is also a template i thought to create which say "This user admires Nazi Germany organizational not ideological". I have no extremist purposes with these pages and templates.--Neogeolegend (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what everyone except the original complainer thought you meant. You're not in any trouble.  Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * any ambiguity that might be in these messages has been purposefully put into them to trick people into believing it is covered by policy, which it is clearly not. Showing nazi flags or showing admiration for their symbolism, uniforms, quotes, whatever, is not WP:CIVIL. It is completely unacceptable to show the nazi flag on any user page, regardless what comment you put next to it. It is also completely unacceptable to make a nazi-style portal shrine that presents nazis in an alarmingly stupid and naive way. This is the same as putting lots of penises on user pages and making portals full of penises. Would that be accepted? No. Should this be accepted? No, certainly not. --rtc (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet. Be careful with how you cover topics.  It's one thing to create content about the history of Germany during that time frame, it's a different matter to comment about how wonderful it was.  It's one thing to report the facts associated with the topic, it's annother to only present information that is only glamorous to the ideological standpoint.  Just a fair warning as you'll probably get more "He's interested in Nazi's, let's form a mob against him" attitudes as this was. Hasteur (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And because nothing about the ideological standpoint has been praised, there are no problems. There's nothing wrong with having a portal on this period of German history and the beliefs that drove its government, and unlike a user who puts a penis gallery on a userpage, this is a single image being used to identify the subject.  Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, I can as well put a penis on my user page and write an ambiguous comment like "this user is interested in human anatomy" and obviously that wouldn't be an excuse. "nothing about the ideological standpoint has been praised" This is just stupid. It's like saying, oh no, it's not okay to praise Hannibal Lecter, but if I praise his face mask, that's okay! --rtc (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Rtc. Without comment on the topic at hand, and just a note for future reference.  If and when you start a thread on an admin. board about another user - you are supposed to inform that user about it so they may respond.  Just a FYI. — Ched :  ?  15:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually did that a long time ago, and actually the user has responded above already. He's saying he "admires Nazi Germany organizational not ideological" That's nonsense. You cannot separate the two Nazi Germanys. It's like saying "Oh, I'm not admiring the nazis killed so many jews, just the efficient way they did it" It's just completely unacceptable. Pars pro toto --rtc (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RTC, I say this will all the respect in the world, but let it go. Several editors/administrators have told you that there's a difference in the interest of the history of Nazi Germany and the support of their ideals. I notice that you've claimed that you edit on the German Wikipedia. In that case there's very specific and explicit rules about Nazi iconography and symbolism. This isn't the German Wikipedia and your attempt to drum up sanctions or stir up a lynch mob is not going to win you any support. Hasteur (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't Nazipedia, the encyclopedic standards are the same on all wikipedias. I do agree that there's difference in the interest of the history of Nazi Germany and the support of their ideals. But it depends on what kind of interest. Describing Nazi history, I'm okay with that. Using their symbolism for an end in itself, in a completely unacceptable context, I'm not okay with that. --rtc (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * @Rtc - apologies. I was looking for a "section", and didn't notice that it was tucked under another thread. — Ched :  ?  15:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"We have a very daring and skillful opponent against us, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general."
 * Rtc, I have to agree with the others. For example, I have an interest in WW2 air fighter tactics, and airplanes.  I admire the different tactics - and yes, it means I admire how the Germans fought air-to-air.  That does not make me a Nazi sympathizer.  I also admire the uniforms, again, I'm not a sympathizer of their cause.  I also have studied the psychological and leadership methodology, and can honestly say that some things were incredibly done - again, that does not mean I think that Nazi's were cool.  Having an interest in a subject does not mean I support the subject's goals. dangerous panda  16:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's disruptive that some users have some uncritical and naive views; that's just a fact, although an unfortunate one. I'm saying it's disruptive to put such userboxes on a user page or create such a nazi-shrine-like portal. It was part of the nazi's propaganda methods to make it seem as if everything were just some good-looking uniforms, war heroism, lots of symbols etc. The problem is it was not just that. This matches pretty much what the user has done. Thus: What the user was doing is nazi propaganda. --rtc (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This has devolved into a "Nazis are bad" thread. Suggest that this thread be closed down as no administrative action is likely to occur from this report and rtc look at the numerous WP:VP threads about Nazis before trying to peruse a current non-starter. Hasteur (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not about whether Nazis are bad or not (they clearly are) -- it is about Nazi propaganda being against WP:CIVIL, which means including nazi flags on a user page, with ambiguous comments, or creating a nazi shrine portal that uses nazi symbolism as an end in itself. --rtc (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the discussion is closed. But I've dispensed a little advice anyway at User talk:Neogeolegend. Uncle G (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He is now trying to bully me by putting my complaint from above on top of his user page. This is another clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and, if I may add, it is a tactic frequently used by the nazis: publicly denounce the critics. He is also adding further ambiguous userboxes, like "this user is opposed to any form of socialism" (including national socialism? or in the way the nazis said they opposed any form of socialism?), "This user respects Erwin Rommel" (because he was a nazi? or because of being an alleged "war hero"?). This is also standard tactic: saying something by stating the accessory parts of a statement and omitting the core. Taken his userboxes together, they are very consistent with saying by omission that he supports nazi politics. Don't let yourself be fooled by the way he does it. --rtc (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa whoa whoa. You lost the argument; stop calling people Nazis. You know who else denounces critics? YOU. You are denouncing your critic, herr rtc. And I look forward to your pogrom against me for saying: I respect Erwin Rommel. The man was a hell of a tactician, one of the smartest generals to ever have command. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * omg you guize: "Popular stories of his chivalry and tactical prowess earned him the respect of many opponents, including Claude Auchinleck, Winston Churchill, George S. Patton, and Bernard Montgomery. " CHURCHILL WAS A NAZI --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa indeed: Rtc, you just called them a Nazi ("it is a tactic frequently used by the nazis[sic]"). That is blockable. You might wish to retract that by adding around that part of the statement, and by never repeating it. dangerous panda  20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's a direct personal attack and must be retracted. --Golbez (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

- Churchill

 * Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Golbez, what critic did I denounce?! What did he criticize? I repeat again, he is bullying me by putting my complaint from above on top of his user page, denouncing me as a critic. He is adding further ambigous user boxes. Stop claiming that it's me who is doing something wrong here. It's inappropriate. I now put a notice in German wikipedia that it needs to be discussed that you start tolerating nazi symbols in unserboxes and such portals. Obviously nothing has been learnt from history. That's poor. Perhaps more people will voice their opinion and be able to explain you (=en.wikipedia) why it is inappropriate to deal with this topic in such a lax way. I will retract nothing. It is a fact that this is a tactic frequently used by the nazis. I stated at the very beginning that I am not sure if he actually is a nazi or just naive. And if you incorrectly understood my statement as ambigous, why don't you apply the same standards with respect to Neogeolegend, who is intentionally adding ambigous userboxes etc.? About Rommel: He was not a member of the nazi party, but he didn't have any objections against it, either. His relation to nazi idiology is still controversial. It's clear, however, that he certainly wasn't the person with the clean slate as the myth suggests, and at best politically naive, just as many of his fans today. --rtc (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Let it go., and will experience the fairly obvious consequences down the line.  And no you may not add that veiled implication in the same breath as waving WP:CIVIL around.  Let it go.  Those of us who've been here a while can predict exactly what's going to happen here.  It's happened before.  This noticeboard won't have anything to do with it.  Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The end is completely predictable, Neogeolegend is ensuring that, let it run its course. I'm re-closing this. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

user boxes
hello everyone. there was a deletion talks regarding a box says this user is interested in nazi germany. the debate closed so fast. There are two templates were not the main part of the talk Template:User respects Erwin Rommel and Template:User admirs Nazi uniforms. I don't no what is the problem with last two templates to be deleted. then I thought to create a reasonable one which is more better and with no category. I think there is no reason for deleting it.

--Neogeolegend (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By now it seems you get a kick out of posting swastikas all over the place. I've no-wikied your precious template; I have a problem with your other advertisements for Nazi fetishism as well. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I think you're coming very close to the WP:IDONTHEARTHAT level of disruption that normally earns a block from editing, if you haven't passed it already. I would strongly suggest you confine your interest in Nazi Germany and its trappings to improving articles on those topics rather than fiddling around with userboxes that clearly antagonize your fellow editors. 28bytes (talk) 02:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a global issue, see Ar:مستخدم:Neogeolegend (see boxes on the bottom, which can be shown via clicking on [أظهر]; one of them contains a Rommel fan box too) and Ar:بوابة:ألمانيا_النازية which he seems to have created and which essentially is the arab version of Portal:Nazi Germany -- which BTW I just RFDd. --rtc (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 * This is history not advertisement. The deletion to other two templates was not right since they were not part of the talk. we should wait for other admins and experience editors to see if i did anything wrong.--Neogeolegend (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Admins and experienced editors are telling you that you did something wrong, please pay attention to what they are saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be terribly unhappy if ever single userbox on Wikipedia was deleted, but the community has decided otherwise, and allows editors to advertise their interests on their userpages, within boundaries that the community sets. You have no inherent right to have any particular userbox on your page, and if consensus decides that a userbox you want is disruptive, then you cannot use it.  Recreating a userbox in a slightly different form immediately after it has been deleted is not the  way to endear you to other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neogeolegend - In this particular matter, what you intended to state (which only you know for sure) is of secondary concern to how the userbox is perceived by other editors and administrators. And it's being widely perceived by many people as overly enthusiastic regarding Nazi-ism.  Userboxes and user pages and so forth are not your property per se, they're part of the community, and community standards do apply.  Subjectively, by the other community members.  Again, regardless of what you intended when you made them.
 * Beyond My Ken is correct here - if the community judges that the content is inappropriate it has to go. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I my self a Semitic because people from my decent are from Shem the son of Noah. The only I listen now you will be blocked you are trolling you are kid playing around and so on. I can't find any thing harms wiki a I need a reasonable reasons for the deleting.--Neogeolegend (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not fall back on the "Arabs are Semitic too, so Arabs cannot be anti-Semitic" canard. Whatever its etymology, "Antisemitism" in English means prejudice or hostility towards Jews  and not "prejudice or hostility towards anyone descended from Shem". You need to understand that since the fall of Nazi Germany, the world has has a lot of experience with people and movements which have an unhealthy interest in that regime, and it's not very often that it's been shown to be a benign thing. Most often, such enthusiasm is an extremely good marker for people who are Fascist, virulently anti-Jewish, bigoted and, in some case, fully subscribe to Hitler's agenda.  Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith encourages us to believe that you may be the exception to that experience, but if that's the case, you're not going to convince us of it if you keep pushing the envelope.  I guarantee you that bona fide historians who are experts on Nazi Germany do not have websites adorned with swastikas. Who does?  Neo-Nazis and the like.  If you truly are simply someone who is interested in a particular period of history, then please stop acting like those people who adopt these symbols for reasons that are highly objectionable and totally beyond the pale for this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Several people have been somewhat rude to you, which was not OK, but there is a legitimate content issue here. I have asked people to not be rude to you (below and elsewhere).  Hopefully that will calm down.  It is clear that you are upset about the responses right now, which I understand.  It may be best if you stop editing for a while (go get some sleep, perhaps), and respond in the morning.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

With my apologies to all for probably getting this spread out to yet another page... Neogeolegend, if you believe the deletions were improper, the place to take that discussion is WP:Deletion review. Lady of Shalott 03:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Thanks LadyofShalott and George William you are very kind to me. I will take your suggestions George and lady and go there to review. I will sleep soon.--Neogeolegend (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please tone this discussion down
The question of whether the degree of Nazi symbolism shown here is appropriate for an encyclopedia is entirely valid and up for discussion. However, here and several other venues this has broken into borderline and in some cases over-the-line personal attacks on Neogeolegend. I am not personally a fan of Naziism or excess use of swastikas or other symbology (here or elsewhere) and know it touches a lot of people's hot buttons. And I am entirely willing to block policy or behavioral problematic antisemitic editors (did earlier this week for another one). But Neogeolegend is not from a western country, and therefore culturally should be given some leeway for discussion, is perhaps enthusiastic but mainly focused on the history, and is not making personal attacks on people or antisemitic comments.

If you think his useboxes and other content are excessive please focus on that. If he starts showing actual Nazi ideology or antisemitism that's another issue. But unless he does, please treat him with reasonable respect and focus on content questions, not attacking him. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note that the user page does not merely contain nazi symbols, but, in addition, a statement proclaiming "this user believes that removing history is destroying history itself", where by "removing history" he means removing said symbols (which is clear from the picture above the comment I quoted). --rtc (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and on this particular matter the community already told you up a few conversations that it's OK. Please stop bringing this back up again.  You are approaching disruptive editing here on this point, rtc.  See WP:STICK.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just stressing that showing nazi symbols is on the user's agenda, ie., he's doing it deliberately, not merely accidentally out of enthusiasm or something. He apparently knows very well that what he is doing is controversial, to say the least ... But you are right, I am probably beating a dead horse. gnite --rtc (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Professing admiration for Naziism is crossing a bright line as far as I'm concerned. There should be no wishy-washy "he's from another culture" excuse-making here. Tarc (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally find it disgusting, but some other cultures do not see the big deal. Here in Indonesia I see people with Nazi swastikas (as opposed to the Hindu ones) on their motorcycles, and they seem to have no understanding that Hitler would probably have put them in the gas chambers too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If a US or European person were doing this I'd have already blocked myself, as nobody here grows up without the cultural and historical references and context. Someone in Wisconsin, say, clear neo-Nazi.  Historians here who have grown intimately involved in studying the Reich and admire non-Holocaust aspects are always very very careful (i heard one preface his comments with "they were great bloody monsters, but let's talk about their industrial programs and research...).
 * Many others around the world don't get the context and aversion. They just don't.  You have to use analogies in Iran ("like what Ghengis Khan did to you...").  Etc.  I've met plenty of foreigners who are educated and aware but just don't inherently get it except by analogy like that.
 * That won't cover actually espousing Nazi ideas in my book, but earns non-adherents whose historical interest is academic or personal and not ideological enough of a pass to at least explain the context sensitivity and not go straight to leaping down their throats.
 * There are both actual multiethnic Nazi sympathizer / believers out there and many antisemites (antijewish / antizionist) who are Nazi boosters out of common cause, some in the middle east. Had I seen that here I'd support a stomp.  So far I have not read such a diff or comment, though I could have missed something.
 * We cannot and must not turn Naziism into a toxic, forbidden topic which cannot be dynamically and enthusiastically discussed or covered here. The light of open truth is the best way to defeat the remnants of its actual supporters.
 * We cannot and must not BITE newbies from other cultures who venture into this area without our sensitivities. As long as they are not Nazi adherents or promoters, enthusiastic students of all origins should feel welcome, to help shed light etc.
 * Neither of those should stop us from ending participation of actual adherents and promoters. We need a reasonable balance allowing it to be a viably covered and curated topic without allowing its promotion here.
 * Again, I indeffed an antisemite a few days ago without guilt or delay. If I saw that here I'd do something myself.  What I see is either one of the worst cases of BITE in some time, or a Nazi whose comments I have manifestly misread but 20 or so of you have failed to find clear examples or diffs as evidence.  Usually evidence diffs are easy and rapid.  If some come I will read them.  I could be wrong.  But haven't seen them yet.  Either they aren't there to find or people are being unusually slow about showing their work.
 * Post 'em if you find 'em...
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Diffs: Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that leaves little to doubt. Indef-blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Beat me to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)This seems to be against a particular country, not a religion. Specifically, it is related to P-I dispute. There are plenty of places in the world where this is perfectly acceptable, where this type of thing regularly appears in the mainstream public (non-English) press, often in political cartoons that play to local sentiment (Emad Hajjaj's "Mahjoob" comes to mind), and indeed, where it is not wise for anyone who has a problem with it to publicly express an opinion. A discussion needs to take place about why it is not acceptable here. Neotarf (talk) 11:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it isn't acceptable here, period. Actually, I don't care so much about the anti-Israel vandalism in and of itself, but the anti-Israel vandalism in combination with the Nazi symbolism gives the lie to the claim that the Nazi stuff was "just" neutral historical interest, rather than a desire to promote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's the combination of edits that leads to the obvious conclusion this guy is trolling and trying to get a rise. Bye, bye per WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Folantin (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. It might have been okay to have "interest" UBX's, but once the editing pattern proved full-blown racism/nationalism/hatred, it was time to say "bye".  One would think that a wise editor, knowing they were being watched carefully, would have amended their ways dangerous panda  12:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe the deletion of the user boxes (by Drmies), as they were written and presented was the right call in the end. They were too disruptive, if for no other reason. As I recently said, it they were changed to reflect an interest in the historical study of the time, that would be different. So I agree with that point, mentioned above. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Good block, obviously. Now that it's clear what Neogeolegend was here for, can we close this? 28bytes (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your find does add weight to the matter. It should be closed. Kierzek (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it was Viriditas' find. But vandalizing Israeli templates leaves little doubt in my mind what's going on. 28bytes (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Viridas for some specific evidence. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney VP Selection
I don't know if this has been brought up anywhere, or if this is the right place to mention this, but I find this CNN article to be very interesting. So who's it gonna be? It appears we will decide :> Doc   talk  12:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Village Pump is probably more suitable. Safe to say that the articles of anyone remotely linked to it should be getting watched for speculation / trolling until it's announced. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed, and this article has a little more information. Personally I think the spike in edits in 2008 was the result of information about the selections (which had already been made) having become known to staff members (who need to know so they can help get the two running mates together for the announcement the following day) who then try to sanitize the article of the person selected. What we are seeing here, involving multiple candidates, may be something different, where the selection has not been made yet and the staffs of the candidates are trying to improve their boss's chances by clearing any discouraging words out of his/her article.  Neutron (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That article also points out that it's just as likely that fans of candidate X who happen to see anecdotal evidence of the sort elsewhere on the Internet are responsible. It would be daft for any staffer to go editing an article on his boss from a government IP in the circumstances today. But again, not an AN issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a flurry of vandalism edits to a few potential candidates last night, so a few of them are semi-protected anyway. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Politically-motivated alterations to biographies of living people? That's bread and butter for the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Arab (rapper)
Can an admin respond to me at Talk: Arab (rapper)? I left a message. Jawadreventon (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why did you create a talkpage for a deleted article? A non-existent page does not require a protected tag on it dangerous panda  20:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Rename discussion, may be of interest
Administrators may be interested in a rename discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

TfD backlog
Hi Administrators. WP:TFD has quite a backlog at the moment. User:Plastikspork, who's been doing many of the closures recently seems to be away at the moment. Is anyone able to help out? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment in this thread about blocks
Hello, everyone. Any administrators or users who are knowledgeable about blocks are invited to please comment on a proposed change to the username policy, which would affect how administrators assess a decent chunk of blocks on the English Wikipedia. There has been little participation so far, making consensus-building difficult. See this section. NTox · talk 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Humboldt Cave AFD
An editor has tagged Humboldt Cave for AFD, following a dispute with another editor over an unrelated AFD. I've asked at the first editor's talk page for him or her to remove the tag, but it looks like the AFD for Humboldt Cave should be closed, as it does not appear to have been made in good faith. It hasn't been added to today's AFD log page yet. Lone boatman (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed the bad-faith AfD tag from the article and deleted the associated AfD page. Will explain on the talk page of the editor concerned. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The name pretty much says it all.  is mad at some Olympic boxing judges and created a spate of one-line articles on judges concerning their "controversial and scandalous" decisions. Unfortunately, the references don't actually name the judges in conjunction with the press coverage of the dispute - the names were derived from the match scorecards.  I deleted them all as unsourced negative biographies. Rather than create a policy-compliant article on 2012 Olympic boxing controversy (there's probably been one for every Olympiad) as I advised, they've chosen to argue.  Having failed to gain traction at WP:DRN, where they were told to go to WP:DRV, they've chosen to start a retaliatory AfD on Humboldt Cave, one of my recent articles.   Acroterion   (talk)   11:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Since the AfD was speedily deleted, I removed the AfD tag from the article. Hope that's alright by everyone  p  b  p  13:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They're at it again, .  Acroterion   (talk)   13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Have re-removed, and will block if it's added a third time. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Angryjo2012london has not been notified of this discussion. This should have been done when the first report was filed, as it says in angry red letters at the top of this page.... I have now notified and I hope the user concerned steps back now. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access
User talk:PsiEpsilon needs talk page access revoked. There are too many diffs see talk page history. Ryan Vesey 14:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I had already asked the blocking admin to take a look. Thanks for doing it. -- DBig Xray  14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan
If past experience bears out (and this CNN article can attest to) we're likely going to see a lot of activity on Paul Ryan's wikipedia page over the next 24 hours. There is already some edits/reverts being made dealing with the rumors that Mitt Romney is going to name him VP tomorrow. Still just a rumor and nothing is getting out of hand, yet, but this may be a page that a few admins will want to put on their watchlist real soon. AgneCheese/Wine 04:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, there are claims that Stephen Colbert has asked his viewers to vandalize articles on Romney and his VP candidates. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  04:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not claims, it actually happened. --M ASEM  (t) 05:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Policy question
WP:BLANKING says the following may not be removed by a user from their own Talk page: "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." Does the phrase "any other notice regarding an active sanction" include an active block notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think so. If we wanted to allow removal of active block notices, I think we would need to make a specific exclusion. Ryan Vesey 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I recall this question being raised some months ago. I think consensus was in favour of prohibiting removal of active block notices, but I'll look for the discussion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Here is the discussion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, Lothar, very helpful. I can now see in the edit history where the phrase "any other notice ..." was added. FWIW, the sentence should be reworded in my view as the added phrase encompasses the first phrase. It was that redundancy that gave me pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How does that work with normal talk page archiving? Obviously you can't create a talk page archive if you're currently blocked, but people with active Arbcom topic bans who aren't blocked are able to archive their talk pages.  Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's unnecessary. Checking user's contributions clearly shows active blocks, no need to force editors to maintain a badge of shame on their talk pages. Nobody Ent 00:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? People don't generally go to the contributions page to find out about an editor, they go to the talk page first.  A block may or may not be a "badge of shame", it all depends on the circumstances, and the talk page can provide a lot of additional information which can help put the block in context.  The block log has no context, just the naked facts - and strictly from the admin's point of view.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that any comments related to the block but not in a template can be removed? Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excluding the block notice if it wasn't given in template form. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's my understanding -- only the block notice itself cannot be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In my case, the user blanked the entire Talk page. I restored ONLY the current block notice. I haven't seen an answer to Nyttend's question. I also agree that current block notices should not be removable. Checking the log isn't an easy matter for most users, and I don't see why we should have to. It only has to stay in place while it's active.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know what people do? All I know is what I do -- user or talk page then immediately bounce to user contributions. Look at page of last contributions (what have they been up to?), then go to earliest (see how old account is) and then down to the toolserver edit count (total number and distribution). That's all real data.
 * If an editor is blocked I don't understand why vultures editors need to be circling around their talk page -- they can't do any harm to the encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Nobody Ent is 100% correct about how it should be, but as I recall there was no clear consensus on this issue the last time it was discussed. I know that for blocks that I make, I don't care if the user blanks the block notice, and if some Rulz Enforcer comes in and replaces it, I'll revert them. For cases like this where there's no consensus, I guess deferring to the blocking admin seems a reasonable compromise (even when, if they disagree with me, they're wrong). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'd be happy to agree with you when you're right.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for review from uninvolved editor
Hi, I have been accused of edit warring on a controversial article Liancourt Rocks and so I would like a review by an editor that has had no previous involvement with this article or any related article. I have removed text from this article which claims administration of the islets by South Korea as none of the sources given actually state this. My reverts are based on Wikipedia guidelines, however I will not make any further edits to prevent an edit war. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a valid warning -- at a minimum, you should be explaining your reasoning at Talk:Liancourt_Rocks Nobody Ent 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the warning. I'm asking for a review of the edits I've made and I've just added a section on the talk page. Clover345 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Divineabraham
Divineabraham is requesting the removal of his present indefinite block, which was levied a year and five days ago after an SPI. The user seems to have socked more after the block; he last posted an unblock request in January, after the most recent discovery of a sock, but was given WP:OFFER and told to wait six months. After not editing for more than six months, he just now posted a request for unblock:"I believe that I deserve to be unblocked, its been more than 6 months. I think I have gained some maturity as well."I declined the request procedurally, since I don't think that this type of block should be removed unilaterally, but I promised him I'd submit his request to the community. I am neutral on this specific situation. Please offer your input so that we can have a solid consensus on this user's future. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally commensurate with an SO response, I expect the user to explain what they did wrong that got them blocked in the first place, what the intend to do differently, and what areas of Wikipedia they intend to contribute to. Saying "I've waited and now I'm not going to be bad" isn't usually enough.  If he can make it clear that he knows why what he did was wrong, and can explain why Wikipedia needs him around, that would go a long way towards gaining my support for an unblock.  -- Jayron  32  20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I wonder about the vague assertion: "I think I have gained some maturity". There should be a greater certainty expressed that maturity has increased, what the previous bad behavior was, and that the behavior will not be repeated. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, Divineabraham produced several unblock requests between August 2011 and January 2012; you may want to read them to understand his thinking more fully. I've invited him to participate by using the helpme template, so it's possible that he'll respond to what you say here.  Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unarchived, since this probably should get more discussion. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, lack of discussion = lack of community interest in unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I virtually never participate in these things, and to me it seemed right to get someone to close it, among other things. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * They've repeatedly been told to review WP:OFFER, I don't see any indication they have done so. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Manning
Hello I believe my edit is correct because it doesn't say Bradley Manning leaked the info it just states that there was a leak which is not in question and User:Srich32977 thinks that his belong I have no malice towards him I just don't want edit war.TucsonDavid U . S .A . 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind discussion opened on the talk page. TucsonDavid U . S .A . 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a content dispute and best dealt with on Talk:Bradley Manning where Srich attempted to start a discussion with you earlier but you have either missed or ignored and reverted him anyway. None of this merits an ANI over and I'd watch that you don't shoot yourself in the foot with an edit-war claim. Have you notified him of this thread?
 * I applaud your self-revert as moving in the right direction.

 * I didn't notice the discussion until just now I am making no claim against him of edit warring and I even revert my edit until such time as the discussion is complete with a consensus.TucsonDavid U . S .A . 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unban request of User: Shakinglord
As per a discussion on User: Muzemike's talk page, I publicly reveal that I, User: Penguin 236, am actually a sockpuppet account for User: Shakinglord. I am very sorry to any editors disturbed by this fact. I have come to AN to request my unban. I believe that I am a substantial editor, my goal is not to disrupt Wikipedia at all. I come wanting to improve Wikipedia, like each and every good editor here. I merely made one fatal mistake, and that ruined my career editing Wikipedia. I would like to clarify the matter of my socking, a matter that is seen as "strange" to my blockers. I admit that my first socks were bad. I was both depressed and paranoid and I wanted to arrange a test as to whether people cared about me on Wikipedia if someone ranted about me. I was blocked, and the rest are simply just the spawn of panic, out of a sort of need to edit and improve Wikipedia. I know that banned editors are not supposed to request their own unbans, but please, hear me out on this one. I firmly believe that I can make decent edits to Wikipedia. I do NOT want to return to Negapedia. I feel that I can better improve Wikipedia here. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In the discussion at his talk, Muzemike refers to checkuser data (he's a CU) connecting Penguin with Shakinglord, so we can take it that Penguin is telling the truth and not trolling by pretending to be someone else. No opinion on the unban request.  Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * CheckUser wasn't even necessary. All one had to do was make the connection with his old account here. --MuZemike 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay; I happened on this by accident and assumed that you connected the two with CU. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Just out of morbid curiosity, what is actually true about who you say you are on your user page?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean the user boxes, those are my real views and hobbies. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Strong oppose: I'm sorry, but lying which you have been persistently in the past does not signify any change in my opinion. Elockid  ( Talk ) 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am deeply sorry for that, I was simply fearful. My intentions are good. I do have to admit, my socks are not. I am simply trying to say that a clean slate will alleviate the problem. That is all I want. Then, I will acknowledge that my previous transgressions are bad and I will never sock again. Isn't this what WP: ROPE is for? Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Fact of the matter is that you still tried to deceive us again. If you were truly, keyword, truly deeply sorry for your actions, then you shouldn't have tried to pull off the same stunts as last time. You blew the previous chance you gave yourself with, threatening legal action and trolling. Let's not forget this which is essentially the same as this situation. Elockid  ( Talk ) 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose at this time. The time-wasting silliness of this, among other things, tells me that the standard offer would be a wiser course of action. WP:NOTTHERAPY is pretty apt here as well, I think. 28bytes (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That, again, was a mistake. I was simply freaked out that I may not be able to help Wikipedia. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Oppose There is a a correct way to request to be unbanned, but he choose to use a sock instead so I don't see how we can trust that he will not disrupt Wikipedia again.TucsonDavid U . S .A . 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let us examine the possibilities. If I am unbanned, why would I further sock or disrupt Wikipedia? What do you have to lose by unbanning me? I am a good editor, had I not posted that I am Shakinglord, you would have not thought of me as problematic. True, this has turned into a bit of a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I simply could not keep living a lie. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, I implore you, let us forget those horrible, foolish mistakes. Those were awful, yes, but there is no need to dwell on them. I can do good, and you know it. Please, if we leave my past mistakes, I promise that there will be no more sockpuppetry, lying, or disruption of any kind. And, on the first sign of disruption, you can block me forever. Also, if I am unbanned, I promise to stay off ANI and AN unless the discussion directly concerns me. You really have nothing to lose. Quoting ABBA, take a chance on me. Robby The Penguin  (talk)   (contribs)  03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try with the popculture quoting and flowery appeals at forgiveness. I don't think that's gonna change the attitude of people towards you given what you've done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment - I find myself somewhat annoyed that I spent the better part of an hour last night attempting to assist you with determining the nature of your block and with how to request an unblock, only to find that you knew perfectly well why you were blocked all along. I did start to smell "something" along the way, and I even strongly suggested that you grok the implications of the attention you were about to bring upon yourself. Although it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of this discussion, I don't know if you realize that your actions have (among other things) resulted in a complete block of an entire school from editing on Wikipedia. That kind of impact is FAR more detrimental to this project than pretty much anything that you did as an editor. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not your ban should be lifted, that will be for others to determine. I do have an opinion that your actions in the past have been severely detrimental to the project and create a high bar to overcome. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This editor could have created a new persona and tried to quietly edit and help the project without fanfare. Instead, he has been prominent in recent discussions on ANI, calling for blocks and bans on other editors.  This is a strong indication that his motivations are far from clear, that his intent is not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia, and that he cannot be trusted.  Follow the Standard Offer and come back when you have done so, to ask again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Leaning towards Hell no and block the sock until the discussion is finished. --Onorem♠Dil 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It's a good thing Penguin owned up as a Shakinglord sock, but that doesn't excuse a circumvention of a block on sockmaster. I agree with BMK and TD's votes. After screwing up with all those edits, to trust this sockmeister again is an issue of concern to the project. Rebuilding a reputation via the original account and not socking ever again seems to be too steep a road for this guy...what's Negapedia anyway, some Newspeak-version of WP?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose and block the sock When an editor is blocked (especially one with the history of Shakinglord), we occasionally grant them WP:OFFER.  When that happens, and someone does unblock as per WP:OFFER, that is the WP:ROPE.  One may not simply seize a rope of their own, using their own rules, and of their own accord.  Evading a block is evading a block, period. dangerous panda  09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We had this public appeal at 01:56, 12 August 2012, yet at 00:10, 12 August 2012 Penguin had still been lying about it and would clearly not have come clean if not caught. A period of honesty of just 106 minutes between the last lies and the unban appeal is nowhere near enough to convince me of good faith - I'd recommend a minimum six months of no socking and no lies, as per WP:OFFER, and block this latest sock at the conclusion of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there are channels to go through and socking is not one of them. Yes Robby/Penguin revealing himself is a good sign, but let's not forget it was only inevitable before it MuZemike or somebody CUed him. GiantSnowman 10:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Blocks prevent disruption. Bans formalize block-on-site of long-term disruptive editors who have exhausted community patience. This editor has again demonstrated that he is not willing to comply with site policies but instead to disrupt and waste many others' time. Therefore I see nothing to gain with unbanning an editor who causes us to waste more time and refuses to obey policies. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Shakinglord's final contribution to his account on November 21, 2011: "I formally retire. I ask that no one disturbs my userpage, in memory of me. Farewell, perhaps we will meet again someday." Prophetic but too often true of a sock. On April 24, 2012, SL created the Onepier account. On June 3, 2012, when the Penguin account was created, SL said on this board: "Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here.".

 * Since being here in his new guise as Robby, SL has trotted around like a self-important puppy, spending most of his time here and at ANI, making pronouncements on all sorts of things as if he is already an administrator with 10 years of experience. When told by many that he should spend his time elsewhere ( & ), he ignores the advice and continues to do what he likes best, game-playing drama. I actually think he doesn't necessarily care whether he's doing "good" or "bad" as long as he's entertained. He's a precocious, emotionally immature boy (I'm assuming he's really 15) who has no boundaries in his behavior. He states above that at the "first sign of disruption, you can block me forever." I submit that his responses here are just as disruptive as the rest of his conduct and we should accede to his request. His contrition is absolutely hollow, and he has exhausted this community's good will.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Comment I think we all are just wasting our time with this discussion. and that a Admin should just go ahead and close this unban request per WP:SNOW. TucsonDavid U . S .A . 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * After the admitted ban-evading sock has been blocked, of course. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek
Don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think this needs to be clarified. I am stating it in good faith.
 * Looking at the support section of above WP:RFA, I can figure out that it has a devoting effect of regionalism. As, the candidate is from India. Major supporters are also from India, who are supporting with a formal rational.(i.e. Voting in the RFA after long time, or more perfectly voting for the first time) I think these activity could change the results of RFA and also the consensus. Possibly, I could be wrong about this perspective. but, It is the thing that needs to be clarified. GiantBluePanda (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that this best belongs at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * At least say few words about it. GiantBluePanda (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as nobody is engaging in canvassing or sockpuppeting the votes are perfectly valid. I trust that the bureaucrats can distinguish between "Support - He's Indian", and "Support - ". (Disclaimer: I supported Ekabhishek.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * But, It could be non-wiki canvassing. (Please I am not assuming bad faith) You can easily figure out that half of Indian users have voted in support, while they have rarely voted to any RFA in past. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please ban editors from WP:INDIA from participating in any RfA related to members. It's a simple solution really. — Spaceman  Spiff  12:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think this is an issue. Obviously editors monitoring the talk page of the candidate and/or the various nominators would know about the RfA and would be motivated to !vote in it. If this brings more editors into the RfA process, that's a good thing. And, should we really be monitoring ethnicity of editors? --regentspark (comment) 12:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't. Rfa's are some of the more highly watched WP areas so I don't think any action is necessary. Nobody Ent 12:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, please say you were being factious with that comment, I literally choked on my coffee when I read that. I find that patently offensive to even suggest (joke or not), and certainly a violation of policy and common sense. I can confidently say that we will NOT be monitoring the ethnicity of voters, and not barring good faith votes based on any Project the participants belong to.  That is a strike-worthy comment. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No more offensive than the OPs suggestion that I supported the candidate because I'm Indian. — Spaceman  Spiff  12:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't aware of your ethnicity, so the sarcasm wasn't obvious. I would agree that both are equally offensive, yes.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to say this all seems in bad taste to me - if someone works extensively in India-related areas, they will be well known to other people working in India-related areas, who will be more likely to !vote in an RfA than people who don't know the candidate - and (surprise, surprise) a lot of those will be Indian! Although a candidate's ethnicity does not play a part in my decisions, I am pleased when I see good candidates from other parts of the world than the Western/American/British culture that forms the great majority - it's the best (and probably the only) way to address the systemic bias that is unavoidable in a project dominated by one culture/ethnicity. What matters here is whether Ekabhishek will make a good admin, and people's !votes should be assessed on their actual words, not on their ethnicity. (Mind you, did you see the number of Americans who supported Dennis, and Brits who supported me? What a disgrace!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * GBP, how do you determine that many of the supporters are from India? Simply their activity?  You'll notice that I've done a good deal of work on Liberian topics this year, but I've never been to Liberia and am ineligible for citizenship there.  The whole RFA appears to be devoid of problems.  Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:GiantBluePanda
Furthermore, appears to be some sort of troll intent on disrupting RFA, RefDesk, and. See especially these edits: (he claims to be a cleanstart account; he should know this), disruptive question, disruptive question, disruptive user talk post, disruptive question, questions BWilkins's autochecked alt account, CU violates privacy policy, nominating people for adminship , desysop Bwilkins #1 & #2, and more in his edit history. This is in addition to the initial CU misfire (visible on his user talk page, which he currently has at MFD) and bumping into checkuser blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct in that this is an odd looking contrib list, the question on user rights that you linked  is particularly telling, as that isn't something you stumble across accidentally as a new user.  Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a false alarm. Please see . I asked Bwilkins' advice on my behavior. I was confused whether my behavior was disrupting or not. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a cleanstart account, not a new user. Nobody Ent 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't preclude them from being a a troll, and his added diff doesn't disprove that either. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have e-mailed Coren my previous account name. User:Reaper Eternal has fired too many questions at me. Dennis! I am willing to explain all your doubts, if you have. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't a disruptive post, neither is. You can call this [] a adult question. Ask the user himself about [] whether it is disruptive or what. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I held myself back from using the word "troll" to describe GBP more than once. Their unhealthy fascination with me (on both of my accounts) indeed has raised some concerns. Unrelated to that, I actually believe the original block on them was correct, based on WP:DUCK alone. Clearly, they have been around awhile - whether it's a valid cleanstart or a block-evasion, someone else can find out. Overall, they're a pain on the project so far - an unfortunate net-negative based on their entire editing pattern - not including the surreal attention I have garnered from them dangerous panda 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have intention of disrupting the project.If I had, I wouldn't have asked advice from you.My problem is, I am trying to adjust my self returning after 1 year. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I've dropped a note on Coren's talk page. I'm not inclined to offer any more good faith in this situation and think his input as CU is required. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen talk of getting checkuser input, but what exactly is it that you want us to do? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The user started their career with a checkuser block, which was then reversed due to a possibility of it being in error. I was wanting a second review, per contribs.  Since Coren has received an email from the user and knows the circumstances best, I was thinking he would be the best to re-review. The contribs here are quite arguably trollish and Coren might be able to shine some light on the situation. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I have very little confidence that this editor is legitimate. The user contacted me after my original block giving a plausible explanation and naming an account as his past account after a clean start.  His story was just coherent enough to give an AGF unblock – and no more.  There are a number of other indicators of trouble and connected accounts that make the situation smelly enough that I had discussed the case (after my unblock) with the other functionaries in case someone recognized a long-term abuse pattern.  While nothing concrete popped up, it's not clear how reasonable continued good faith remains reasonable at this point.  — Coren (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked - Based on the evidence here, including the opinions of ES&L, Reaper, myself and Coren, I have reinstated the original indef block. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 15:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with the block, unfortunately ... but expect a loud whine in 3...2...1... dangerous panda  15:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And he requests an unblock, while not logged in, and geolocating in the exact same geolocation and ISP as previous socks, thus further proving the sock issue. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 15:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleanstart revocation
From the above, is it a reasonable assumption that this isn't a CLEANSTART candidate? If so, how does one go about piecing together the paper trail from whatever account was abandoned under a cloud to start trolling as GiantBluePanda? Is it as simple as assuming he's a sock of the puppetmaster that he geolocates to? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Coren know his past identity. GiantSnowman 10:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * More precisely, I know of an abandoned account GBP claims to have been his. I'll be keeping an eye on it, and I'll pipe up if it wakes up, but I see no way to reveal a link that may or may not be true between the accounts at this time.  — Coren (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
Can somoeone put this debate out of its misery? I attempted WP:SNOW closure a while ago but someone reverted, and since then it's only garnere even more keeps, with 5 days still left to run. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With 24 edits (currently), you attempted a non-admin closure of a controversial AfD without marking it as a non-administrative closure and without even signing your, uh, decision. And someone reverted you? Gee, what a shock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's controversial about it? It's tanking keep. It was when I attempted closure, it still is now. The revert was only made on the basis that they believe it's not a SNOW case, it had nothing to do with the fact I failed to sign it or anything else as far they were concerned. Do you see something to gain for Wikipedia by letting the article be tagged for a further 5 days? Bearing in mind it's one click away from a number of links exposed to the masses via the Main Page both right now, and in a short time too. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From the definition of controversial: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Several editors !voted delete in that AfD, so there clearly is disagreement (controversy) in the AfD. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But the argument now is that a keep consensus has been established after the initial snow close. It might have been too early then but is sure as hell (mind the pan) justified now. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

HeCameFromTheShadows, please tell us who you are a block-evading sock puppet of. --MuZemike 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ad-hominem. Address the argument, not the man, or take it to a proper venue. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 22:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Given that his very first edits were to remove the cleanup tags and then close the AfD, I think this user owes us an explanation. --MuZemike 22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiki-lawyering and rules-parsing by a "new user" to retain articles? I'd bet a plugged nickel on . Tarc (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm generally a fast learner, but this time I am a bit slow: Why a plugged nickel? Either you bet something of value or you avoid speculation. Otherwise you are plain rude. →Yaniv256talkcontribs 23:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Otherwise. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, however, that you'd lose your nickel in this case. Black Kite (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I only take virtual nickels. Tarc, why don't you make yourself useful and pick the nickel in the section right above us? →Yaniv256talkcontribs 23:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, there was a SPI created a couple days ago in which this editor was mentioned; but it wasn't created correctly, so isn't listed at WP:SPI . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

In other news, I have closed the discussion as snow keep. BencherliteTalk 22:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * In other, other news, the reporting editor has been blocked as a sock. Dennis Brown -  2¢    ©   Join WER 12:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Drmies needs to be banned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Drmies is falsifying reasons in order to remove legal notices. Should be dealt with.Rul3rOfW1k1p3d1a (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For reference, this is the diff in question. VQuakr (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * I've blocked for 24 hours to stop the disruption they were intent upon delivering.  I believe this individual is not here to edit constructively, but I've been wrong before.  Tide  rolls  03:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * They're now blocked indefinitely. Of course, if I do get banned, I got a whole drawer full of socks, bwuhaha. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Admin help needed in ARBMAC area
Cross wiki POV pusher added unconsensus map to the ARBMAC area Kosovo article. I restored original neutral map that was in the article for years, and after that, several reverts occurred, last one by highly involved admin. Kosovo article is under 1RR parole, so i am asking for a some neutral admin to restore original map until talk page discussion is over. None is allowed to push its own povs without agreement, especially when nationalistic causes are fuel. So, admin should restore old consensus map, and wait for a new agreement on talk. We must follow rules. Old map must stay in article until (if) new map is agreed on. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 21:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the substantial difference between map #1 and map #2? Obviously I see the topographical elements in one of them, but I mean: why is one neutral and the other not?  Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The one added by Hannover95 gives Kosovo a bit of extra territory to the north and east. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that until now, but yes, you're right, the grey one does chop off quite a bit of area from the diamond shape that every other map depicts. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, restore old consensus version! That is essential wiki rule. After we agree on new one, we can easily put it in. This old map is also a default one, as seen in List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe. Each entity should have the same map. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 10:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already extensive discussion on the article talkpage. If that discussion doesn't go your way, coming here to ask for somebody else to revert on your behalf (allowing you to sidestep 1RR), as well as taking it to AN/I is really not a good idea. bobrayner (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that was great idea. Without neutral editors, who cares about wiki neutrality, Kosovo article would now be pro-RoK altar of nationhood, with coat of arms and Albanian heroes/freedom fighters all over fighting for use of Wikipedia as propaganda tool. -- WhiteWriterspeaks 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for a rude commentary about me be stricken from history
Hello, could someone please remove this insulting commentary about me from the Gumbo article history:

It would be greatly appreciated. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Revdelled. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Worrysome
This might be of administrator interest, since it would be a massive copyright violation. Since Penguin 236 is indeffed and also has no TPA, I'm not quite sure if I should notify him or not. Thekillerpenguin  (talk)  01:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Thank you for letting us know. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's the allegation of a planned copyvio? Remember that we're set up to permit copying, and some policies that harm the quality of the encyclopedia, such as no-noncommercial-licenses and no-WP-only-permissions, are in place specifically so that others can copy our content without difficulty.  Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there would be a copyright problem if they start copying every article. They would be considered a mirror or fork at that point. You are free to copy information from site to site, or wiki to wiki, as long as you attribute where you got it from. Wikipedia operates under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. So if they don't hyperlink where they got it from on Wikipedia, or attribute the authors on the talk page, edit summary or otherwise, it would be a violation. At that point, you would go through the process of having their content taken down. Since it is a Wikia site, the proper thing to do would notify someone on there to notify them instead of going through the steps of sending a DMCA takedown notice

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238