Template:Active editnotice

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 23 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 78 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 42 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 38 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE

(Initiated 58 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 11#Colonia Ulpia Traiana

(Initiated 63 days ago on 30 March 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer

(Initiated 60 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 59 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 56 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 55 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

(Initiated 54 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 53 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge

(Initiated 53 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 28#Freeze, everybody clap your hands!

(Initiated 52 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 50 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 49 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Jackahuahua

(Initiated 48 days ago on 14 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 47 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Hornless unicorn

(Initiated 45 days ago on 17 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#TotalMedia Theatre

(Initiated 44 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)

(Initiated 44 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

(Initiated 38 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Supplemental Result

(Initiated 37 days ago on 25 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 36 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 36 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#D-bar operator

(Initiated 36 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon

(Initiated 35 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 34 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 32 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Desi (Tibetan)

(Initiated 30 days ago on 2 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor Jay. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 26 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 26 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:American people of Arab descent

(Initiated 25 days ago on 7 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Category:Extinct Indigenous peoples of Australia

(Initiated 23 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 15#Category:American people of Arab descent

(Initiated 17 days ago on 15 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 74 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 46 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 30 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 18 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have to raise this here because it is seriously impacting my editing abilities and my ability to sign any comments I make. Over the last week to two weeks, at least, I have been unable to access wikimarkup (with symbols, diacritics, Latin, etc.) I left some stuff unsigned hoping the Sign-bot would do it but of course it didn't. It isn't the computers, because it's like this in Internet rental places, at public libraries, etc. Most pages do not automatically have the wikimarkup where it used to be. Some do, most do not. Just thought I'd let you know. There is a note that says "View hidden categories on this page" but that has nothing to do with this problem. Unable to sign, so .... User:Rms125a@hotmail.com

They moved it from the bottom of the edit window to the top; see "Special characters". It might require Javascript to work though. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am OK now. Can't speak for everyone. Quis separabit? 19:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, since you could type @, why couldn't you type ~? Is your ~ key broken? Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your curiosity (and snarkiness) surprise me -- there are "@" symbols on library keyboards (reread my comment), but not "~" symbols, to the best of my knowledge, and I am looking down on one at this second. Quis separabit? 17:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How odd; every computer keyboard that I can remember using had a ~ key, located just left of the 1 key at the top left corner. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I never noticed it because I never used it. No problem admitting that. Anyway, was I supposed to go on typing "~" four times every time I needed to sign something on Wikipedia for the rest of my days? And what about everything else in the markup?? Quis separabit? 18:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still see a notification at the bottom of the edit window that says Sign your posts on talk pages: then has a four tilde blue link that inserts your signature. Livewireo (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In the U.S. they do… —Kerfuffler  thunder
plunder  18:30, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyway, was I supposed to go on typing "~" four times every time I needed to sign something on Wikipedia for the rest of my days?" That's what I do - didn't know there was any other way of doing it! I don't know what astonishes me more: my lack of clue about the technology or Quis separabit's concept of what's onerous... DeCausa (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto DeCausa; I always type the tildes. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to automate signing, why do we require that every editor ritually append four tildes after each talkpage comment? It's just make-work. It also serves as a shibboleth - we can easily spot those editors on a talkpage who haven't yet learned this utterly pointless system. bobrayner (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• avaya.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• support.avaya.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have identified what appears to be an ongoing campaign to destroy coverage of Avaya competitors, while preserving and expanding coverage for Avaya products. This group of mostly SPAs has been involved in voting Keep at Avaya related AfDs, while voting delete at AfDs for Avaya competitor products. One particular account has gotten many dozens of articles for Avaya competitors deleted, or tagged with negative article issue tags, all the while voting keep in Avaya AfDs. The center of this effort seems to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel which I have nominated for deletion, since its membership is almost all meatpuppets and SPAs, save one or two. Because this problem is wide-ranging in number of accounts and longevity and not likely to be solved with blocks or bans, I think it's going to require ongoing vigilance from all administrators to recognize actions that are part of this marketing campaign, and to carefully consider AfD closures when the topic is networking or computer hardware. Gigs (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added spam-tracking above, and asked for creation of m:User:COIBot/XWiki/avaya.com (which covers the other). Under the top users of that link are quite a number which are in the Avaya Pushers document by Gigs:

• Geek2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• SpudMcCoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Camillevc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 208.25.46.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

More will be in the report. Looks pretty promotional. Maybe consider a bit of cleanup. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edits are at least superficially constructive. Gigs (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia in a constructive manner? Spammers are also sometimes constructing whole spam-pages for their company, and there may be merit in parts of the text, or the company may be notable - but that does not mean that it is still spamming what the editor is doing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm just pointing out that this is "next generation" promotion mostly from users savvy of our norms and customs, which makes it all the more insidious. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through Geek2003's userspace and nominated most of it for deletion. MER-C 02:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Liberty Reserve regarding One friend of mine start a PTC (Pay to Click). He told me that what he earn he can withdraw his money from Liberty Reserve Bank, I ask him what kind of bank is it, He further told me that it is an online funds transferring system.

I need more info about it, When I search it through Wikipedia, There was no related topic. When I think of creating a new Article about Liberty Reserve, this message appear to me,

A page with this title has previously been deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. 23:43, 26 April 2011 Athaenara (talk. The thread is "Liberty Reserve".The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. --Irfan Shehzad 16:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC) I will be your kindness if you guide me so in future I may became careful. Thanks in anticipation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfan shehzad (talk • contribs)

I suggest that you follow the articles for creation process to create a draft article, then submit it for review by other users.--ukexpat (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sending out an appeal for admins willing to lend a hand with unblock requests at UTRS. There are times recently when I log in after 24+ hours and the last unblock requests closed were mine, and a list of 20 or so new requests await. Right now there are requests that have been sitting in the queue for days that I can't close as I was the blocking admin, have already declined an unblock by the user, or am otherwise somehow involved. You can sign up for access here and most of the requests are simple to close as there are multiple response templates available with a single click. Any additional help would be appreciated! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either need more admins or need to fix the UTRS system. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 21:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing less as I've now got a job - sorry. Secretlondon (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, your absence has been noted! --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Emoji article lists a lot of Unicode emoji picture characters, and many of these have been wiki-linked, usually to redirection pages that take you to an article discussing the picture's concept. Not all of the pictures had been so linked, and I tried to do a few more. But when I tried to create redirects for the national flags (🇯🇵 → Flag of Japan, 🇰🇷 → Flag of South Korea, 🇩🇪 → Flag of Germany, 🇨🇳 → Flag of China, 🇺🇸 → Flag of the United States, 🇫🇷 → Flag of France, 🇪🇸 → Flag of Spain, 🇮🇹 → Flag of Italy, 🇷🇺 → Flag of Russia, 🇬🇧 → Flag of the United Kingdom) I get an "unable to proceed" error with a message asking me to post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. Silas S. Brown (talk) 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing this is the title blacklist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why they're needed - they're merely listed as examples with actual links afterwards dangerouspanda 22:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not amazingly useful, but we've long had redirects for other Unicode characters to the articles that talk about the items in the symbol; that's why ☂ and ✄ are redirects to Umbrella and Scissors, for example. Deleting them really wouldn't be helpful, and since we have a lot of them anyway, we might as well create the rest. Nyttend (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant rule seems to be

.*[^\0-\x{FFFF}].* <casesensitive> # Very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles

(The comment says "very few", but that rule limits it to none.) Interesting that single-character titles outside the BMP are still allowed, but the flags are not, presumably because they are each coded using two Unicode characters. Perhaps the title blacklist is not supposed to apply to single-character articles. In that case this might be a bug in the software in that the flags are not recognised as single characters when they should be (it's a bit of a special case though). Silas S. Brown (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Regional Indicator Symbol, maybe we should add U+1F1E6 through U+1F1FF to the list of allowed characters? Silas S. Brown (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a bug. These flags are two characters, not one, and only one-character titles are whitelisted. I'd recommend against a blanket whitelisting of these characters, but it might not be entirely out of place if someone wants to whitelist ^(Talk:)?[\x{1F1E6}-\x{1F1FF}][\x{1F1E6}-\x{1F1FF}]$ specifically.

Also note that the reasoning behind the rule blocking all of those characters with the comment "very few" is that the very few exceptions can be easily enough handled by asking an admin to create the article. Anomie⚔ 05:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Cross-posting from VPT) Per request from responders at Wikipedia talk:New editor feedback, we've added the ability to delete feedback permanently, and extended the 'hide/unhide' function to all autoconfirmed editors. May the force be with you, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try deleting one to see what it's like, but I don't know what we consider abusive enough to delete (let alone to hide), and I don't want to get rid of som:eone else's valid comment. Is there a way to submit feedback as a test? Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to register a test account. Anyway, there isn't a policy about what to hide or delete, but generally delete was added because people do write abusive or vandalism-like comments ("My penis is huge" or "Editor who reverted me is a bitch") occasionally. I think people should just use their best judgement. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; I've seen a few really bizarre rants and general asshattery that should be completely removed from view, so it's good to be able to. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also nice for removing spam links posted there....or personal info. Lectonar (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

....which brings me to the question (perhaps a silly one): can it also be oversighted? Lectonar (talk) 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there is no oversight. However, there is no undelete. So while this doesn't completely delete it from the database, it means that anything deleted is effectively gone forever. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How does one delete it? The options I can see are Feature this post, Mark as resolved, Hide this post, Request oversight, View activity. GiantSnowman 11:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm....I can see delete feedback, hide feedback and respond. Are you talking about the article feedback? We are talking about the feedback dashboard I think. Lectonar (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So we are - my bad! GiantSnowman 11:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of the hassle of creating/using a test account, an option is to submit you own feedback and then delete/hide your feedback. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 10:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know where to start this discussion, so if this is the wrong place please feel free to move it to the correct place. Bots keep adding incorrect inter-wiki links to Psy (film), basically because it has the same title to another film on foreign language wikis. Our article is about a 1992 film while the others are about a 1989 film. Is there a way we can stop the automated addition of these links? Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment out the incorrect links. See User talk:Yurik/Interwiki Bot FAQ#The bot keeps adding back an incorrect link to site xx, what should I do? Graham87 05:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A non-admin did a NAC here Talk:Reincarnation_research#Extended_rationale, but their rationale appears to be a super-vote and vote counting. An uninvolved admin close was originally requested (by me) because it's a contentious topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Eraserhead1#About_closure_of_discussion_in_.22Talk:Reincarnation_research.22 for more examples of a vote counting mentality. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'd have closed it the same way (don't know, didn't look closely enough to do that) but on the face of it the close is reasonable and not a supervote. The closer felt that major changes to the article since many of the !votes came in meant that those !votes were addressing a different article. I'm also unclear how something can be both vote counting and a supervote unless it's really really clear that policy/guidelines strongly force an outcome--something I don't see here. As far as the canvassing issue goes, there were problems on both sides (Maths, Science and Technology as the RfC home, really?). Given the nature of the close there is plenty of room for a new close (the closer made that clear I'd say). Hobit (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half of it is a supervote, the other half is vote counting. Science makes the most sense for an article which is about parapsychology research. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think you are just trying to make an unsubstantial complaint about a close that you didn't like. Given the number of disputes I have helped solve I am perfectly capable of handling and ignoring such complaints - however I don't think the same applies to the majority of our admin community.

There's a reason that many admins shy away from difficult closes and it is complaints like this which have little substance to them that prevent them from closing discussions. This actually prevents the project from moving forward and it is very disruptive if we can't get difficult discussions closed.

Of course it is reasonable to complain about closures if they are grossly bad, e.g. the closer was WP:INVOLVED or they grossly made the wrong decision, as would have happened in this case if the closure had occurred on the 23 August. The last closure I complained about involved the closing admins ignoring instructions from the arbitration committee on the method of closure, which is also at that sort of level. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantiated it exactly; you vote counted, you admit as much. You discounted the opinions of others, because only one person rebutted the "substantial" improvements to the article argument. "Since 23 August, when the article started to improve, of the three new people to comment one is in support of the merge, and two are against, which is substantially different from the overall numbers for the whole RFC (10 in support vs 6 against). It is certainly possible that the people who felt this article should be merged still hold that view, but while we could ask them to update their comments, we may as well start a brand new discussion as that will minimise any potential for loss of face should they change their minds." You didn't give the arguments any way, you just said that the editors didn't reconfirm their votes, clearly indicating you are counting votes as your reason.

"With regards to the scientific value of the research, perhaps that isn't made clear enough, but that should be resolvable with standard NPOV discussions and processes, and I don't think that is a compelling reason to ..." that is a supervote, I would expect editors to make that comment while voting. Noone made that argument in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly reasonable for the closer to say that some arguments aren't compelling. That is what consensus is all about. I am also not clear on how you can show a swing without looking at the numbers. I didn't require any specific count so argung vote counting is ridiculous. You can't insist that people close every discussion how you would as a partisan. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In principle everything would be OK. That is, I can imagine an RFC that could be reasonably closed in a similar way. But, you see, if you count "swing" votes and miss some (as I am arguing in your talk page - [1]), getting a "swing" of 1:2 and later 2:3 instead of a contrary 6:4, then things become worse...

Also, it's OK to assign weight to arguments. But in this case it has been argued that you assigned them incorrectly, giving too much weight to the "improvement", the value of which has been questioned. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the swing given 3 people is such a small number it will have very large error bars on it. Including a couple more people and reducing the percentage from 67% to 60% doesn't seem to be a statistically significant change, especially given that existing posters are extremely unlikely to change their minds.

Fundamentally the improvement to the article is obvious. If you so partial about this subject that you cannot see that the article has improved significantly then you shouldn't be posting here to challenge the decision. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I'll give a link to the diffs on the talk page where one relevant misunderstanding has just been cleared up: [2], [3]. That should explain some thing to the readers of this discussion. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Martynas had already addressed the point I was going to make there is no point me making it again because it's not a vote count. That I now see that you discounted my opinion because I didn't reiterate it, because you were vote counting, seems unfair. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification! -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A motion on the "net four votes" rule has been proposed. Editors may comment in the Community comments concerning motion section.

For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is since the unofficial summer break a substantial backlog at Redirects for discussion. More hands in closing but also more participation in some discussions would be helpful. Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people. I got topic banned from reviewing Good Article nominations back in April 2011. Since then (just over one year ago, in fact) I got approved for one trial review to see if I could be let back in to the area. I held off for a while before taking the chance but in August this year reviewed Talk:Clifton Down railway station. I think that one has gone alright so I'm asking if I can be de-topic banned and allowed to continue with it now I have proved I can review properly. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should cross-post to WT:GAN as well. --Rschen7754 23:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Davenbelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moby Dick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alarbus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tar Baby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Br'er Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(The above is for illustration purposes only and is nowhere close to an exhaustive list. See also User:とある白い猫/RFAR/graph)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jack Merridew

This has gone on for long enough. This editor's got so many accounts that I'm not sure what he should be called, but I'm going to refer to this editor as Jack Merridew (JM) since that's what he's called when he was unbanned by ArbCom. Basically, he had a big sockfarm then, which is why arbcom included a single-account restriction in his unban motion. That restriction was kept (with an unrelated exception for a bot) in 2009 when his unban conditions were reviewed. Nonetheless, JM decided to create Gold Hat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which would later come back to bite him when JM then went to arbcom in 2011 to try to get his single-account restriction lifted. When it was clear that the restriction would stay, JM...threw a temper tantrum, deliberately compromised all of his accounts (creating lots of work for stewards who had to lock them all and oversighters who had to suppress his edits). In June 2011, an arbcom motion was passed directing him to edit only from a single account.

Instead, JM decided to sock and use IPs instead to evade the arbcom restriction. In this process, he deliberately compromised a number of his socks, again creating work for stewards and oversighters. Eventually he came back as Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs), and edited in relative peace until he got blocked for edit warring on Template:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Instead of doing what most editors blocked for edit warring do (either sit the block out or make an unblock request), JM decided to evade the block using a sock created in late July, in violation of the arbcom restriction, and well-after his return as Br'er. When that account was blocked by a checkuser, he created a new sock, User:Br'er Bear, and proceeded to verbally abuse the blocking admin and Raul654, who I understand was not on the best of terms with him.

Enough is enough. The creation of Tar Baby (talk · contribs) is the breaking point for me. Even if we consider Br'er Bear as a heat of the moment thing, there's absolutely no excuse for creating a sock in July in violation of the arbcom restriction. We are talking about someone who had a sockfarm before the unban, who then created another sockfarm when his request to lift the single-account restriction was declined by arbcom, and now yet again started socking. I propose a full community ban. T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - there are no third chances.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The Civility template warring is particularly ironic. This guy is poison, he cannot work within guidelines. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• By the letter of policy, I would lean to support your rationale. I have however seen where enforcing clear civility violations is furloughed when considering the valuable contributions of the offender. In keeping with such spirit, a ban is clearly over the top and obviously counterproductive. I haven't given a cursory look at the circumstances, but venture an odds on guess that when I do, culprits will be seen to have substantially provoked the matter. And they always seem immune for their actions. I say this can be handled with a block. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Civility violations are one thing, sockpuppetry is quite another. The latter involves actual deception, a much greater breach of community trust, and evidences a much more significant disregard of community norms. There's a reason why a first block for socking is usually at least one or two weeks. T. Canens (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support You know, I used to be rather supportive of Jack Merridew; he had rather persuasive supporters and the narriative of ArbCom not following through with what it said it was going to do has been played out so many times that appling it to Jack's situation wasn't a stretch. However Jack's latest account has done a fair amount of trolling, and the Ba'er Bear account's actions are unarguably unacceptable. I wonder how many former supporters he's burned through. I, for one, won't be supportive of him getting a "third" chance. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No third chances. Ironholds (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He seems to have burned all his bridges; no third chances. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 04:33, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No third chances and the poor treatment of other members of the community should have been stopped long ago. MarnetteD | Talk 04:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I rarely vote on community bans, but I rarely see someone who so clearly deserves it. In my personal capacity, and not as a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation. -Philippe (talk) 04:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is part of a long-running, ongoing cycle that (presumably) started with his first ban as Moby Dick. Make a few accounts so he can do different things without attracting attention, then he gets into trouble with one or more users, storms off in a dramatic huff while the friends he made in the right places defend his name and try to (often successfully) argue that he is a net positive to Wikipedia despite his misbehavior. There have been so many socks - the list above is only a fraction. Some are created only as "jokes" (some people find them funny, some aren't laughing), and some of them are clearly created only to cause some kind of trouble. He has had so many chances to just fade into obscurity with a new account, but it always seems to come back to more controversy. A block is irrelevant, because he can and will (as evidenced by recent continued socking) create new accounts. A community ban, if that is the decision, will not stop him from creating new accounts either, but at least when that happens admins can just block them when they are found. BOZ (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the "while the friends he made in the right places" bit reads as a bit too cynical. Jack is a genuinely nice guy and an interesting person to talk to, when he's not trolling or launching personal attacks. I don't think he went out of his way to curry favor with power brokers, as much as that he just had a good personality (usually). Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. No doubt there are things administrators can see that I can't, but why ban Merridew now for an alternate account created back in July? Using undeclared alternate accounts isn't forbidden, even administrators do it, so where has Merridew been sockpuppeting? Malleus Fatuorum 04:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think you understood what was said above. User:Br'er Bear is the sock that was used today as a way to get around the civility block made yesterday, even if the sock account in question was made in July, but not used until today. If you look at the account's contributions, you'll see him cursing out Courcelles and Raul654. Silverseren^C 05:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ever so slight point of order, the recent block that was being evaded today was for edit warring on Template:Civility, not a block for incivility. Courcelles 05:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Tar Baby (talk · contribs) was made in July and used to evade the block today. When that got blocked, Br'er Bear (talk · contribs) was created today. T. Canens (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I had it reversed. Well, that makes it even worse then. Silverseren^C 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Those names (and "Br'er Rabbit") originated in the Uncle Remus stories, in which the "Tar-Baby" is a doll created as a means of deception (as Jack obviously is aware). Not only is he socking, but he's openly mocking the community in the process. —David Levy 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support serial sockpuppetry to bypass retrictions has no place here. Bidgee (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I do not know or even understand all of Jack's history, but in almost every encounter I've had with him, I've been impressed with how clever, narcissistic, and untrustworthy he is. His outbursts (listed above) seem characteristic of the suave person unmasked. He must've done some awfully good work for the community to have put up with him for so long. Even without these personal observations and based purely on the evidence presented by T. Canens, he should be banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - with that many socks? for sure. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've been protesting against his little antics for /years/ (accused of "trolling", of course) and had recently promised to hold my tongue, in good faith, to some of his supporters since the latest incarnation of "Br'er Rabbit". Oh, well. He is here to play whimsical power games and mock the community's trust and judgement. He doesn't care what those who disagree with him want. He scoffs at consensus, bullies his preferred changes in by consistently edit-warring, rudely attacks other editors, positively radiates bad faith to those not in his corner, canvasses off-wiki to his supporters to influence things here (and inform them of his socks, whom they enable)... the list goes on. This isn't just about socking (which he unsurprisingly has been doing again). He's an extremely disruptive editor who consistently proves it. That's why he is here. The bad outweighs the good by far: and the "good" of his edits changes at his quirky whims anyway (see the shift in "proper" citation styles enforced by this editor). Doc talk 05:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The above "sock farm" is misleading - most of the accounts are stale, were used serially rather than to abuse multiple accounts simultaneously, and they were retired by their owner. To bring them up without making it clear they are stale is likely to mislead people. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Why is one of the socks unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've tried very hard to work with Jack, but this is how he reacts when he doesn't get his way. Enough is enough. No more chances. —David Levy 05:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I can't support this. Jack is a good editor who made a stupid mistake. I've done that recently and I think a little time away should be given for circumventing a block definitely, but not an indef block. Maybe starting over the previous block and tacking on some extra time (a week total sounds good), but indef it's too permanent and hard as hell to get out of. Jack's work here is good and good outweighs bad here. A punishment is needed, but indef and the banhammer isn't the answer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It appears (from past behaviour), Jack is going to keep editing Wikipedia, whether he's indeffed or not. GoodDay (talk) 06:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How many mistakes should we be excusing here? And how can you excuse sockpuppeting? And not just sockpuppeting, but sockpuppeting after the sockpuppet was blocked, even. Silverseren^C 06:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think NH is excusing it here, just questioning the severity of the resulting sanctions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ...questioning the severity when he's sockpuppeted twice in succession in the same day? For a user who has a past history of sockpuppeting and other violations, to the point of it going all the way to Arbcom and him getting sanctioned for it? Do you really think a measly week-long block matches that? Silverseren^C 06:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, that's for NH to answer - I was just pointing out that NH was not *excusing* it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I think being blocked is being blocked. You don't go get another account or an already known sock and sign in. You sit it out. He should be punished for that. I just think an indef block is overboard.

  @Silver seren: I just threw a week out there (I'm not an admin, so I don't know what the punishment is). Even two weeks to a month would be sufficient. Indef is just too much. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Jack was unbanned on the condition that he edit via a single account. Why should his violation of this restriction (made worse by the fact that the additional accounts were undisclosed and used to evade multiple blocks) not result in the ban's reinstatement? —David Levy 06:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That I wasn't aware of. I don't go anywhere near ArbCom (gives me a headache), but I still think his good work outweighs a bad deed. I am not saying he shouldn't be let "off the hook" for it, I am saying he shouldn't be indef-blocked. Whatever length of time the community choses, just indef to me is too much. Indef plus a ban is overkill. Just the way I feel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This all goes to prove that despite the widespread agreement that editors' good contributions should not excuse bad behavior, said widespread agreement only holds up in the abstract; once an actual editor is involved, we're back to letting good work get in the way of removing a problem editor from the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That I wasn't aware of.
  Did you oppose this proposal without reading it?
  Indef plus a ban is overkill. Just the way I feel.
  Again, Jack already was banned. His unbanning carries an explicit one-account editing restriction. Jack refuses to abide by this condition (which he's repeatedly violated in one of the worst ways possible), so why should he remain unbanned? —David Levy 06:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  NH has said what he had to say. He does not need to be questioned further about how or why he "voted" here, IMHO. Doc talk 07:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When an editor expresses unawareness of information included in the proposal that he/she just opposed, follow-up is justified. —David Levy 07:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  NH is one of many friends of Merridew who are good editors, and are unlikely to change their opinion of him. I'm surprised more haven't come forth already. He's not going to vote to support the ban, so let's allow him a little consideration, is all I'm saying... Doc talk 07:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I respect Neutralhomer's opinion. I merely want to ensure that it's an informed one. It appears that Neutralhomer opposed the proposal without reading it or becoming acquainted with key facts. —David Levy 07:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The most informed ones have yet to weigh in on this... Doc talk 07:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I did read the original post here by T. Canens, just wasn't aware of the ArbCom decision. I don't go to ArbCom, it gives me a headache. Too much like politics (which also give me headaches). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I did read the original post here by T. Canens, just wasn't aware of the ArbCom decision.
  It's mentioned several times in that post. —David Levy 07:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are actually friends don't you have a conflict of interest? I'm not sure that friends posting in these threads is actually useful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ummm... no. There's certainly no COI, and anyone can comment on these threads. Doc talk 08:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Eraserhead1: No, Jack and I are not actual friends. I wouldn't know the guy if he knocked on my door right now. Just someone I have worked with here on Wikipedia and someone I think does good work. That's all. Sheesh, didn't think this would cause a shit storm. :S - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Doc that there's no conflict of interest. Even if Jack and you were actual friends, that wouldn't bar you from commenting. —David Levy 08:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The irony is that many of Jack's recent article-related contributions have been very good. But this is totally unacceptable conduct, and clearly justifies a community ban. People who behave like this aren't welcome. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the serial socking to evade a block shows a complete disregard for the "rulz" of the community. Add to that repeated trolling at WP:TFA/R where he keeps referring to "R[a]ulz", and where he changes the formatting of TFA without discussion (see User talk:Dabomb87. I have been considering either filing a user conduct RFC or a more focused arbitration request, and should one of his cohorts unblock him, I will file said focused request at ArbCom, with complete knowledge of what has been happening at TFAR that I did not have last time. --Rschen7754 06:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (edit conflict) A person who knowingly and deliberately violates Wikipedia policies demonstrates a total contempt for rules and regulations and cannot be trusted with any Wikipedia policies - not even those that apply to content however good their edits might have been. There should be no 3rd chances for any sockpuppetry and most certainly not on such a blatant scale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There was never a reason to unblock thinking his behavior pattern would change, since no there was no indication that it ever would, and this proves it. Regards, — Moe ε 07:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support how many chances, and how much community time are we supposed to waste on individual editors? The majority of users avoid being blocked at all, and the vast majority avoid Arbcom cases. While obviously a first time block shouldn't be indefinite, we don't need to offer chance after chance after chance once an initial block or two has passed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I know this will be unpopular, but a special case should be made here. An acknowledgement of the recent catastrophic failure (and its causes) that has led to these events should be made, and hopefully be sufficient reason for not issuing the requested ban (especially if the user were to acknowledge some remorse)? Just in the accounts listed above, the user in question has made over 56,000 edits, and in my experience has always been extraordinarily helpful, hard-working, and dedicated in building an encyclopaedia for our readers (and the user's technical expertise is second to none). Without this user's inspiration and assistance, Wikipedia will be a darker shade of grey. Give us a hundred Br'er Rabbits and we could finish Wikipedia. Cheers. GFHandel ♬  08:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There already is a hundred Br'er Rabbits, that's the problem. Being a productive user in the article namespace and having some technical skills is great and all without blatantly violating his own terms of being here. Regards, — Moe ε 09:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm tempted to quote Henry IV Part I here, "Banish not him... banish plump Jack, and banish all the world." (And no doubt many people would quote Hal back at me: "I do. I will.") Has Jack given any explanation for why he has done this? Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Request if someone has the time, could they provide some sort pretty table or graph of the overlap of all these sock puppet accounts? I seem to remember that an argument was put forward that he did hold himself to single accounts for long periods, and I'd like to see if that's true. If no one else can, I'll try when I have some time. Worm^TT(talk) 09:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The conditions of the unban request have been broken: "edit from one account only"; "avoid all disruptive editing". That ban should therefore be reinstated. Warden (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Appears to be an incurable case of ducktitis. WP:BLOCKEVASION and verbal abuse of admins are the last straw. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Malleus.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]