Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• 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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 25 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 14 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 94 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 54 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 44 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 35 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 9 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	29	29
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	2	4	6
RfD	0	0	19	23	42
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 300 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Split out Florida?

(Initiated 12 days ago on 30 October 2024) Discussion seems to have run its course and needs closure.72.36.119.94 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 12 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Close Review Request after overturn and reclose

I request a review of the closes at Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_1 and Village_pump_(proposals)#Media_Viewer_RfC_Question_2 to determine whether the closers interpreted consensus incorrectly. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Background

A previous on this same RfC resulted in virtually unanimous Overturn. Then Edokter preformed a half-close on just part 2 (which I find faulty in itself) and which created this mess of two half-closes on a single RfC. Cenarium then preformed the remaining half-close on part 1.

The current RfC is intimately related to the prior RfC June_2014_RfC which established a 93% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for logged in users, and 81% consensus that Media Viewer should be disabled by default for non-logged-in users. Consensus can change, however there has been no redebate of that question for good reason. Supporters do not waste time initiating redebate in order to not-change standing consensus, and Opposers do not waste time initiating redebate when they know that the result is going to go against them. June_2014_RfC is a standing consensus result. No action had been taken on that outcome due to Superprotect. When Superprotect was withdrawn, there was a raging debate in the community whether any admin would, or should, simply step up to implement June_2014_RfC as a standing consensus-action. Many people were arguing respect for consensus itself, arguing that RfC result be implemented as a simple consensus-action. Others argued against it. The first part of this RfC was established as a place for the community to engage in that debate. The question was "Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC". This question was an exact reflection of the debate I saw in the community. Part of the reason for the RfC was to inhibit any supporter from taking action, as a formal debate was underway to carefully decide how to proceed. If the first part of the did RfC pass, the second part asked if the community wanted include terms that we should try to work with the WMF before taking action. The second part would issue a Formal Community-Consensus request that MWF do it for us. The second part explicitly proposed a ban on community-action-to-implement for the duration.Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 2 close review

I attempted discussion with the closer Edokter on his talk page. He was entirely non-responsive there. He did briefly comment here on Administrator's Noticeboard, but he immediately went non-responsive. I was literally in the middle of posting a formal Close Review request on his half-close when I saw that part 1 got closed. I informed him of my intent to challenge his close, but that I was holding that action to investigate the new part 1 situation.

This closer wrote a Wikipedia Signpost article promoting Media Viewer. He also posted on the talk page of the original RfC. He was against it, and gave his strong views that it would not be implemented.[1] He called this RfC "poison", and stated that he feared admonishment if he closed it the way he wanted.[2] I can see no good-faith reason for him to preform an improper half-close on part 2 of this RfC, when a closer going his way could have simply written "No effect" for part 2. He took the option of working with the WMF off the table, and cornered a part-1 closer into either disregarding the majority or issuing a close to immediately implement without notice to the WMF.

Part 2 had 6 bullet points, and overall ended with tiny majority support. The closer properly closed as no-consensus on bullet point 6 (I botched #6 during drafting, it was only supposed to note the expiration of the 7-day hold). However there were several Support-all-but-#6 votes in the Oppose section, as well as Oppose-only-#6 votes. That establishes solid support for 1-through-5, and the closer essentially notes that they are worthy of proper consideration for consensus. A closer needs to offer a good explanation if he does not follow the majority. He gave the astounding explanation that he simply didn't want to bother!?! More specifically his explanation was "There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se". That a poor rationale for denying #2 (saying the results should be delivered to the WMF), that is wrong on #3 #4 #5 (issuing a Formal Community Consensus request to the WMF), that is a HUGE error on #1 (imposing a temporary ban on community action to implement). Note that he deliberately declined to close the first part of the RfC. Had the first part passed (and it still could under review), Edokter's failure to issue consensus on #1 could have resulted in someone acting on media viewer as a consensus action, without notice to the WMF, when there was a consensus to prohibit such action. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 2 close review

Alsee, where during the progress of the RFC did you mention that you had "botched #6 during drafting" or seek to withdraw or amend it? If I had seen you do so, I could have raised objections to the remainder. As it was, for the sake of brevity, I only discussed the greatest failing in the proposal. If you think that was an "Oppose-only-#6 vote", you are in error. NebY (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

NebY, You have raised an excellent point. I explicitly did so in this diff.[3]

Note to Closer and everyone. Many of the Opposes on Q2 are clearly Opposed to an "implement" result on Q1, rather than opposed to adding a 7-day hold on the implement from Q1. If it helps firm up a consensus-close, the final bullet point from Q2 could be implicitly or explicitly dropped. The close could say something to the effect of "Consensus to reaffirm and, after a 7 day hold, to implement RfC:Media_Viewer/June_2014". Alsee (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added bolding to the key section. The closer explicitly considered my proposal to drop the poorly-drafted final bullet point. He offered an absurd explanation for rejecting it. Alsee (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I also contacted him on his talk page after the close, again requesting As noted in the discussion section, consensus can be reached on part 2 by dropping the final bullet point of part 2.[4] Notice that the closer never even responded on his talk page, not until after I notified him on my intent to file a close review request due to his active non-responsiveness. At that point he did respond, telling me to stop "badgering" him.[5] The closer was actively hostile, and actively ignored discussion. Alsee (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Note that I had also added more info in the Part 2 close review section. Look for the blue (edit) showing the addition. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee the diff you provided - thank you - is not from the RfC discussion and was not addressed to those who participated in it, nor does it mention or even hint that you "botched" the RfC or considered it "poorly drafted". It appears that you only considered dropping point #6 when you saw the close and thought the RfC might have passed without it, and that even then you did not think it had been a mistake to include #6; after all, it was precisely that firm action that the entire two-part RfC was designed to produce. You thought to speak loudly and wield a big stick, but the stick is broken and it's time to accept that you did not find the great chorus of support you expected. NebY (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

A few observations :

• the close of part 1 as written would make the close of part 2 moot
• the close of part 1 is not bound by the close of part 2 since no consensus was found in part 2
• the text about media viewer in the technology report was a quote of a WMF announcement
• looks to me like a lot of those things are overblown.

Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, if the part 2 is reversed and part 1 isn't, I endorse the part 2 falling to you to resolve. It never should have been split between two different closers. Alsee (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe you should not have split the RfC into two questions. Frankly, the entire language with which you crafted the RfC looks like it was designed to force a consensus your way, with nested and circular conditions, dependancies and legalese throughout. Any commenter (and closer) had to read the questions very carefully in order to understand the implications his/her comment would have. I closed #2 as is because you did not ammend or change it, and I considered all the comments, which clearly showed lack of consensus for implementing all point in #2 as a whole, because that is what all commenters were responding to. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. I did think that it should have been at most a "Weak overturn close" (perhaps not justifying the effort to write that down), but looking at facts did make me change my mind. It appears that, before closing (Special:Diff/636641653), the closer has written: "This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it." (Special:Diff/636454901). Not only that calls the impartiality of the closer into question (that wouldn't be that bad), it makes the close rather inconsistent. If RFC was against policy, it should have been closed as "Consensus doesn't matter" or something. Otherwise the reasoning that it is against policy should have been rejected. There is no third possibility.

The reasoning given in the close is also suspect. First it says "Such an implementation would not be possible anyway, as policy provides no foundation for the community to "direct" administrators to perform certain actions, especially those requiring the use of admin privileges.". That is wrong - any deletion discussion closed as "Delete" is a counterexample.

"Even if a 'willing' admin would be prepared to do so, others will be opposed." - that is simply irrelevant. The closer has to decide if consensus exists, not to predict the future. If consensus will not be implemented, then it simply will not be implemented. It will not mean that it did not exist.

"Having said that, There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se. Anyone is free to adress and appeal to the foundation and request a configuration change using a bug report, or do so collectively depending on the outcome question one." - such reasoning would invalidate most content RFCs. After all, everyone can edit articles.

Also, the closer acknowledges that "Most opposition is against the deadline and method given in the first and last terms.". Some opposers have explicitly said that they support everything without 6th point (for example, opposers nr. 2, 4, 5, perhaps 8).

And one more thing: one should note that opposers nr. 3, 15, 17 oppose to this proposal, because it is not harsh enough. That would bring the headcount from +19 -18 =7 (19:18 is about 51%) to +22 -15 =7 (22:15 is about 60%). And if one is not going to accept the argument that this RFC is just against policy, consistency would demand that oppose nr. 11 (and parts of some others) would be discounted. Thus, in fact, the numerical result is not as close, as the numbers of votes in "Support" and "Oppose" sections would suggest...

In conclusion, I think that the presented arguments demonstrate that the close was not very good and should be overturned... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Part 1 close review

RfC Question 1 ended 75 Support 36 Oppose. More than 2 to 1 support.

I attempted discussion with the closer Cenarium on his talk page. I was the third person to show up objecting to his close. We had extended discussions, but I ended them when it was clear that further discussion of abnormalities in his analysis would be fruitless.

The point where I gave up re-explaining my original concern was just after he explained which votes he struck for cause, and his cause for doing so. The closer stated that he struck "As per other-person" votes as somehow invalid. That is not merely abnormal, that horrifying. People use "As per" as a quick way to effectively copy-paste the arguments listed by someone else. The fact that two people present the same valid argument for their position is certainly not valid cause to strike the second person from participation, and strike them from contributing to consensus. I most dearly hope the closer has not been doing that in his other closes.

The original and main abnormality that I was trying to discuss with this closer was the exact same problem in the original overturned close. I'll just quote my challenge to the original close, with one small strike:

The question debated at RfC was Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC.... I feel the best way to address the issues here is to request a close which addesses the outcome seperately and specifically on #1 "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and #2 "Implement June_2014_RfC". The closer mis-evaluated the question and misapplied the RfC responses, generating the close "there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time". Based upon that incorrect closing issue, the closer asserts a 70% threshold for consensus on a software setting change. Many participants in the RfC were crystal clear that this RfC did not (and could not) establish a new consensus on opt-in vs opt-out. It is is clear error to close on an issue that participants explicitly state is not currently being debated.

The only difference between this time and last time, is that this time the closer himself points out the problem this creates. The central theme of the closer's explanation, one which he repeats and stresses, is that this RfC did not contain the sort of discussion and debate needed for a closer to directly analyze and issue a consensus on the media viewer setting. And after noting that he can't evaluate and issue a new consensus on that, he proceeds to do so anyway. After changing the question, and finding no debate on the changed question, the closer is cut free from the debate that did happen and wanders off with his views on the issue that wasn't debated. The closer is using the absence of debate on a not-debated-question in order to incorrectly issue a no-consensus on the not-debated-question. Example:

Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This person doesn't even mention media viewer, exactly because media viewer isn't being debated. He's presenting an argument that any standing consensus should be implemented. It is perverse for the closer to use his deliberate silence on an issue not-being-debated as justification to issue a no-consensus on the issue not being debated.

It is especially troubling when the closer is trying to claim that his off-target against-the-numbers no-consensus result has the effect of reversing the outcome of a previously an established 93% consensus. Alsee (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss part 1 close review

• Speedy keep. Can we please be done with all this? The issue's been going on since early in the Northern Hemisphere summer, and reviews of reviews of are a bit much. I haven't looked at Alsee's position and have no idea whether the close is in line with my views on the MediaViewer issue; my opinion here is simply that this is comparable to continued AFDs of an article, problematic simply because the continued discussions get in the way. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't seen much of a problem with a string of counter-consensus closes with AFDs, though, and it's fairly clear that this RFC is being closed against consensus based on a "let's not rock the boat" philosophy.—Kww(talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Nyttend if you want to compare this to a second AFD, the comparison is to an AFD that SUCCEEDED and someone else came a long and recreated the article. If the first AFD was valid then there's a good chance the second one is as well. Alsee (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• It was again closed by some spineless lackey of guy with overeager kowtowing to the WMF, that desperately want this extreme anti-community behaviour of the WMF hidden as far from public as possible. The consensus was clear, the first RfC was to be affirmed. There's not a single reason besides "The WMF will not listen to the community in any event, so why bother?" If we kowtow to those guys'n'gals in San Francisco all the time, we can just give up pretending that this project is a community project at all. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 14:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to be more civil, but it's very hard to be civil with people, who demonstrate extreme uncivilness like the closers of this RFCs with clear consensus absolutely opposite to what's proclaimed by them. Consensus is clear, was clear, and it's as well clear that the WMF is on an extreme hostile path against the communities and doesn't want to be bothered with community input. The main (and perhaps only) reason for MV was: It was the first major project of that team in SF, so it had to be implemented come what may. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Get rid of mediaviewer. Get rid of it. I don't really care what all of this is, but what I do know, is the consensus in the original RFC was established, the consensus in the RFC to affirm that RFC was 2-1, and this RFC is obviously to implement mediaviewer. Let's get rid of it! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 14:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• I was preparing to close this (needed a few hours free in a row) and was glad to see someone else did. I was planning on closing with "Tell WMF that the community would like this to be opt-in" as it isn't clear at all the community has the authority to do that itself. But I'd not finished thinking about it. Not a satisfying close, but a reasonable one. I don't _think_ I ever participated in this discussion (I don't recall being involved ever, but apparently I was because I got notified about this) and I honestly don't care about the outcome. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobit I notified you because you commented on the first close review. The fact that you *didn't* participate in the RfC itself makes your evaluation particularly valuable. Alsee (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• RFCs sometimes end up going a way their proposer doesn't like. This is a thing that happens, because it's rare that everyone commenting in an RfC thinks in lockstep with the individual who started it. I can understand Alsee being annoyed that he put a lot of effort into these RfCs and didn't get the results he wanted, but again...that's a thing that happens. We don't reverse RfC closes because we don't like them or because we would have closed differently; we would only reverse them if there is obvious error or malfeasance (and in a case of malfeasance, it's likely to be Arbcom's remit more than AN's). Barring those things, there's nothing stopping you from waiting a month or two and opening a new RfC, if you're convinced it would go differently next time; that's far more likely to get you results than demanding constant re-litigation of closes already done.

  Specific to this case: Both closes appear adequately-reasoned to me; while there is room for disagreement on whether either of them was an ideal close, or whether they weighted points the way I or Alsee might weight them, there's nothing obviously defective that jumps out from either of them. Cenarium, especially, provided extensive explanation of how his decision was reached and, again, while you or I might close it differently, his explanation provides sufficient support for his close. Edokter's close also appears reasonable; the proposal was for items 1-6, and the voters reached no consensus to implement steps 1-6. An adapted proposal striking step 6 could have been put forward and the voting re-started, but it wasn't, and it wouldn't make sense to close based on "some people thought they were voting on this thing, but some other people decided to vote on this other thing that wasn't proposed, so everyone was voting on something different, but I'm going to pick one that only some people voted on and act like everyone was voting on that." That's a common problem that arises in RfC-type discussions, and it nearly always leads to exactly this: a split vote and no consensus. The usual response is to sit back, regroup, and next time, try to craft a proposal that addresses the issues that split the last one. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• (e/c)The OP should 'WP:drop the stick- multiple closers have closed against your prefered outcome - so drop the stick, and live with it, as policy counsels, and as we must all do from time to time. Endorse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the OP again demonstrates a misunderstanding of wp:consensus and WP:NOVOTE - "per" votes don't add any more reasoning, and votes do not matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• This is a severe problem when we have something complex for admin closure, by definition the more hasty closers are likely to be those that close, where as the more thoughtful and painstaking closers will be left behind. This is not to say that these closes are necessarily incorrect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Cenarium has pointed out that he spent a considerable time (30 hours?) on this close. Let me make it clear that I was not finding fault, simply raising what seemed to me to be a deeper issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
  

  Thanks for the clarification, although I should note that most of it were reading (and a bit of testing) since I was inactive during the events and wanted to get up to date for other reasons as well. Cenarium (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse close, especially Cenarium's detailed and well-written close (which is what Alsee demanded last time, BTW), and {{trout}} Alsee for admin-shopping. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Oiyarbepsy, please do not misrepresent "what I demanded last time". I literally quoted what I wanted last time. This closer exactly repeated the error, and I'm asking for the exact same thing I asked for last time. I'm asking for a close that accurately reflects the debate. I'm asking for a close analyzes and issues some sort of result on "Reaffirm June_2014_RfC" and some sort of result on "Implement June_2014_RfC". Alsee (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Chill. Whatever is being asked here is unclear ('counter', 'overturn', wah…). This likely indicates things have gotten bogged down somewhere. If whatever needs asking again, then please try to phrase the question simply, clearly and accessible to all (eg. Should Media Viewer (a new way to view pictures) be enabled by default on the English Wikipedia?). If the problem is instead bureaucratic/sysadmin/WMF/etc objection then, I presume the techniques used by German Wikipedia can be used. And yes, things may change over-time and one needs to reassess after a suitable break—for instance, I've stuck with Media Viewer since it's release; I only (selfishly) disabled the Media Viewer last weekend when I had some image work to do and tested whether it would be more efficient to disable the viewer in the short-term. So, chill-out, step-back, contemplate the higher-level overview from a distance, it may be that the process (whatever the previous/latest outcome) is snagged on something else. Likely all that is required is a small UI tweak to make it "good enough" for most people, if that's the case lets focus the energy there and contribute civilly, cooperatively and positively. —Sladen (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close It's pretty clear the admin went against consensus , but yet insisted that consensus supported his close, which it didn't. Overturn. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn close on both. Part 2 gave no rationale for going against the majority, and part 1 shouldn't have tried to issue a close on an issue that wasn't being debated. Alsee (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Alsee, you already stated your vote - you should indent your comment and label it Comment so it does not look like you are stacking (if you do so, you can delete this comment, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you refering to the close review request itself? Alsee (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Closer response I closed the first part of the RFC, while Edokter closed the second part earlier. It seems that Alsee is hell bent on making the point that the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status bears no relation to the question of which media viewer default status we should use now. As if it were a purely formal issue on the relevance of the July RFC, as if the situation had not changed since then, as if the current community's stance on media viewer is irrelevant. This is a deeply flawed notion, rejected by the voters in this RFC. For reasons independent of the community's will, the consensus in the July RFC could not be implemented at the time. The situation has significantly evolved since then, to argue on a purely wikilegal basis, without taking into consideration any of those developments, without any more regard for the underlying issue, is a pointless endeavor that has been implicitly or explicitly rejected by the vast majority of commentators. Alsee did in fact acknowledge that we should reinterpret the question in light of the present situation (notably, the consultation and the improvements made to media viewer), I quote "The RfC clearly asks people to review that outcome [of the consultation], and people can intelligently respond based upon that outcome.". Yet, now, probably because the consensus to disable media viewer by default has dwindled enough that it's difficult to make a case for it, Alsee backtracked from this assertion, saying that people didn't actually agree with it, I quote "I fully respect that argument and I actively invited it in the RfC. However participants overwhelming rejected that argument as wrong or irrelevant.". This is clearly false, the vast majority of commentators expressed their view on the underlying issue, i.e. which media viewer default status we should use now, which for Alsee is a (I quote) "utterly trivial issue". It is a fact that the narrow question of reaffirming the previous RFC was debated by only a minority of commentators (half a dozen, the few votes that Alsee selectively quotes), the large majority of commentators actually commented on media viewer, Alsee himself did. The obvious truth is that, contrary to Alsee's claim, in order to answer the question of whether we should reaffirm and implement the July RFC on the media viewer default status, we need to answer the question of which media viewer default status we should use now.

The community has consistently rejected the kind of pseudo-legal argument that would bind us to a decision on an issue without actually examining the issue at hand, and that's exactly what voters did here, they commented on the substance, and expected the outcome to be determined on the substance, disproving the wikilegalistic theory that is being promoted by Alsee now in order to sidetrack the real debate which didn't show the results he expected. More than 90% of votes with a rationale commented on media viewer itself, so for Alsee all of those are irrelevant and should be discounted. Whether he wants it or not, for voters, this RFC was on the media viewer default status, the comments show this, there's just no way of wikilawerying that fact away, and there was no consensus to disable it by default for either registered or unregistered users, so there was no consensus for implementing the previous RFC because it was the determining factor. Independently, there was no consensus for reaffirming the previous RFC, due to the lack of comments on this specific issue and the fact almost all voters implicitly or explicitly tied this question to the former. It isn't the closer's fault that the voters commented on an issue that was not exactly the issue that was being asked to be debated by the initiator, or only a subset, it is the initiator's fault for not having understood that the community is, by tradition, more concerned with the substance than the form. It was proper to close on the media viewer default status, since it is overwhelmingly the subject being debated in the RFC and it was necessary in order to answer the question being asked. Now, concerning my 'horrifying' discount of 'per votes', I mentioned those as not contributing to my analysis of arguments, which is kind of obvious since they don't bring any new argument to the table, they were considered when weighing arguments though. I do not believe that Alsee will ever be satisfied with a result that doesn't give him what he wants: as we have seen, he has wikilawyered to such an extent as to contradict his own previous statements, he accused the other closers of bad faith, his opponents in the RFC of bad faith... Yet, many, if not most, of those people were likewise flabbergasted by the WMF's actions, and voting oppose in this RFC, or failing to reach consensus on implementing the previous RFC, is in no way an endorsement of those actions, as I've made clear in my closing statement there is consensus that the WMF acted rashly and with disregard to the community. With regard to the future, I've actively invited the WMF to publish feedback on the latest media viewer version and address the main issues people have. If in a few months there are still concerns, a new RFC properly reviewing the situation (not just a vote) can be held.

TLDR : To determine consensus on the question being asked, it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, and the lack of consensus on the later implied the lack of consensus on the former. Cenarium (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said people commenting on Media Viewer were "irrelevant and should be discounted", I explicitly stated they should be included! People were debatating whether it would be wise to follow through with consensus, given the MWF's (temporary) blocking of that consensus. Comments on media viewer itself are legitimate reasonable contributing arguments in that debate. In answering that question many participants deliberately did not comment on Media Viewer itself, they saw no need to. Participants who did comment on Media Viewer often only offered a superficial comment on Media Viewer (which your close stresses repeatedly). You cannot ignore what was being debated, and you cannot use the legitimate absence of debate-on-another-question (which you stress) as an excuse to ignore what people DID debate and issue a no-consensus on an issue participants weren't debating. Anyone who thought consensus might have changed could simply Oppose. The result was more-than-2-to-1 Support for following through on an established consensus. It is perverse to issue a "no consensus" the not-debated question and claim that is has the effect exactly opposite of the original established consensus and exactly opposite to the clear consensus here. I'm simply asking for what I asked for after the first overturned close - an examination and close on "Reaffirming and implementing an established consensus". Only 31% 32% called that consensus into question, or opposed following through on it. Alsee (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But I did answer this question, in my closing statement, I first mentioned that you had acknowledged the importance of the new developments, and later, I pointed out that the consensus was no longer standing, as you just recognized yourself. If my closing statement was mostly focused on media viewer, it is because it was, by far, the most important, and certainly the determining factor in whether the July RFC should be reaffirmed and implemented. Cenarium (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In the RfC preamble I ensured that participants could take into account both the Superprotect matter and the Consultation matter. If any participants had concerns that the original Consensus was somehow "no longer standing" that is obviously good reason to Oppose Reaffirm and Oppose Implement. At most 32% had the view that the original result might no longer be an accurate reflection of consensus. And as Supporters noted, anyone with a good-faith-belief that consensus actually had changed should run an RfC seeking to establish a new consensus. That's how consensus works, that's how consensus has always worked. People who agree with an established consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus, and people who don't like a consensus don't waste time re-debating it to not-change-consensus when their true belief is that consensus hasn't changed.

In an AFD where the article-writer promises improvements, it is a routine matter for people to consider the promised improvements and to vote Delete because the improvements wouldn't matter. Are you suggesting that you would close any AFD as no-consensus simply because the article-author promised improvements, and the Oppose-delete-minority said they wanted to see how the improvements turned out? Alsee (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Endorse close Yes, I'm probably not the most neutral party here, however this close was what I was getting at originally. This fiasco has gone on far too long; multiple closures reaching the same conclusion should say something.Let's move on, and look back at this in the future if consensus gets clearer. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Mdann, I agree that the previously overturned close does say something. This RfC has attracted closers with strong minority views. In the review of your close I deliberately left out diffs that you were opposed to the original RfC result (not a participant, but you opposed that consensus), and you supported the development of Superprotect. I took the high road and kept my mouth shut, because I could win the review without the drama. Alsee (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

"I could win the review"??? sounds like WP:BATTLE to me. In any case, when I make a closure, I approach it from the evidence and arguments provided, as opposed to my personal views on the situation, which have always sat in the "meh, not bothered" region. My main reason for supporting superprotect was not that I agreed with it, but as it was a good temporary solution to stop an edit war and get back to discussion. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

By "win the review" I meant "overturn an improper close". I would not challenge a close if I did not have a good-faith belief that there was a problem with it. Alsee (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn close. It is nice that the closing rationale in this case (Special:Diff/637404322) is far more detailed than the previous one. That is definitely good. Unfortunately, the details seem to be of the kind that shouldn't have been there... There is a list of discounted arguments (that is good): "The large majority of supports for turning off the feature were either regarding issues addressed by subsequent improvements, expressing disappointment at the version of media viewer first deployed, frustration at the subsequent events, anger at the WMF, or did not provide a rationale. As such, those did not contribute to the result, neither did arguments regarding exceptions to consensus, speculation on the WMF response, or personal feelings on either side.". But I do not see such arguments in the discussion (certainly not a majority). What were those "issues addressed by subsequent improvements"? Whose argument was "anger at the WMF"? How does an argument "personal feelings on either side" even look like? Actually, something was explained in the talk page (Special:Diff/638110026). That is nice, but it is hard to see how numbers are supposed to add up to that "majority" that was promised (19 out of 75 have been listed; also 4 out of 36 "opposes").

Not that such weights are fully justifiable: for example, many "Votes only expressing dissatisfaction at WMF or personal feelings" seem to be simply relevant opinions.

Then the closer proceeds to weighting of the arguments. Unfortunately, it is hard to see how that weighting takes opinions expressed in the discussion into account. For there were certain indicators which arguments had more weight - for example, those same "per X votes". They were ignored. Instead, arguments were dismissed or claimed to have been supported with something like "The argument that the media viewer does not show licensing information sufficiently compared to file pages is unsupported, since on file pages this information is below the image and in their overwhelming majority, readers will not scroll down to it and look at it since they already have what they're looking for, so file pages aren't that much of an opportunity to educate them."... That could be suitable for a "vote", but is it suitable for the close?

Also, the closer introduces a distinction between logged in and non-logged in users ("First off, it is crucial to make a distinction between logged in and logged out users, as most commentators agree, but such separation was not preserved in the format from the previous RFC.") for little reason. It was not in the discussion.

Then, the closer has simply claimed that "The media viewer has also been considerably revamped since then, so the issue being commented on is very different, and the community has a very different take on the situation, meaning the previous RFC result has become irrelevant (but I did consider the still relevant comments from there).", although there were arguments to the contrary in the discussion. No answer or reason why they were ignored was given.

Finally, it is strange to see something like " As noted, there is no consensus for either of the two main outcomes, but there is consensus for requesting several modifications to the media viewer, in order to address several points of enduring concern, expressed on both sides, which need to be resolved as soon as possible, though the implementation of each can be discussed further if needed", followed by 8 points "with consensus", that were not even discussed as such... That does look like a list of things the closer would personally support... But, once again, the closer shouldn't just throw out all discussion and simply declare that things he wants have "consensus". Therefore, I would say that this close should be overturned. -Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive, but as I said I can develop more now. Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap. (And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former.) As I said above, a "per x" vote is indisputably not an argument in itself and therefore there's no way it can contribute to the analysis of arguments, but again, they were considered when weighing arguments. The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments. I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC. Arguments regarding exceptions to consensus and WMF response did not contribute in the end because the conclusion was reached without them needing to be considered.

Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this.

As pointed out already most voters argued on the underlying issue (media viewer), so it was de facto (if not de jure) an extension of the previous RFC, and it is apparent that the state of consensus on the underlying issue changed. Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed. Of this it follows that the distinction between logged in and logged out users had to be made in order to gauge consensus on the underlying issue. Voters did so explicitly, such as when distinguishing editors from readers, or implicitly, such as when referencing the previous RFC in which the distinction was formalized in structure. In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part.

Regarding you penultimate paragraph, I've addressed this extensively above and in my previous answers (to sum up, for voters the determining factor was the underlying issue itself and it became obvious that the community's take on it had massively evolved).

All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments), or in linked discussions (customization and featured pictures). I gave a few examples of possible implementations but only for illustrative and clarity purposes, and I expressly invited further discussion on those points.

Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence. Cenarium (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If the community's position had "massively evolved" you wouldn't be casting a supervote against more than 2-to-1 support, trying to vacate a consensus you don't like. Alsee (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Regarding your first point, if I had gone into details in the closing statement, the length of it would have been really excessive" - well, I guess I cannot object to excessive length. My statement (and this response) are not very short either...

"Beware that I listed on my talk page the votes which did not contribute to the analysis of arguments, while I listed in my closing statement the comments that ended up not affecting the final result after weighing of arguments, and those are very different things, although there is some overlap." - I see. That's clearer.

"And I stand by my comment on a majority for the later, which I've never suggested for the former." - so, could you, please, make a list, so that we could check?

"The votes complaining of issues addressed by newer media viewer versions were definitely not straight discounted, but they couldn't pass muster after weighing of arguments." - so, what issues (or what "votes") are that?

"I will need some specifics about how a single sentence rant against the WMF can be construed as a relevant argument in this RFC.". First of all, the RFC was asking if we should drop the issue. One of possible reasons to choose is quality of the software in question, but, contrary to your view, it is not the only reason. It is also legitimate to consider the relationship with WMF in long term. If you do not discount opinion that we should not fight WMF (let's say, oppose 25 - "Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary."), it is only fair to refuse to discount opinion that confronting WMF on this issue is a good idea. But let's look at specific "votes". You have listed five opinions classified like that: "31,40,41,45,73". I don't think it is right to consider that as basis for 31 (you could have classified it as one of "Votes with no rationale"). 40 is "Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting." - at the very least, "buggy" is also somewhat relevant if you ignore the "long-term view". 41 ("Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images") - well, what about those fact checkers? The description of the image is not really that visible in Media Viewer... 71 ("Moving from neutral to support, per 98.207.91.246's links under Neutral that show many disgruntled readers and very shaky evidence that Media Viewer is beneficial. I also think it's pretty impressive that someone began editing Wikipedia for the express purpose of protesting Media Viewer. Separately, considering some of the feedback left by readers, this feels like yet another case of releasing buggy software to the public and explaining away the detriment to readers and/or new editors by saying it will be fixed. Finally, there was already an RFC on this and the overwhelming consensus was to disable it. What's the holdup?") - can't think of anything wrong with it. Actually, it counts as a very good response to your "The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported". Unfortunately, you ignored it...

"Regarding the issue of copyright, I am baffled that you throw out an accusation of supervote, which only shows that you did not even attempt a good faith effort to find the counter argument I was referring to. You really didn't have to look far, it was the second oppose vote, and a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section (not the only one though), I had no choice but to acknowledge this." - first of all, please, calm down. I do not say that you acted in bad faith and would appreciate that you would also respond likewise. So, now that that's dealt with, let's proceed. Yes, I have seen that argument. It is, at the very least, less developed than yours. And if you wanted to specify that you felt it was "a powerful rebuttal to the arguments made in the support section", you could have said so in the close (let's say, "I think arguments about copyright information have been answered by oppose 2."). It would have been shorter and clearer. Anyway, your evaluation does seem to ignore the point made in support 3 (difficult cases) and strong support of the argument (supports 3, 35, 36, 47, 59, 74, "per X votes" 6, 32, 60, 66, 67 vs. the oppose 2). And I don't think the oppose 2 is very strong (I hope we won't need to discuss that any further).

"Implicitly or explicitly, the determining factor for voters was the underlying issue itself, so in order to determine consensus in this RFC it was necessary to determine consensus on the underlying issue, which as noted above changed." - as I said, it was one possible reason to choose one option or another, but not the only one. You just mistakenly decided to ignore the others.

"In response to the blunt "It was not in the discussion.", I'll reiterate my disappointment at the lack of even a small attempt to review the discussion; there were several patently obvious explicit references such as in supports 26 and 46, in opposes 6, 11, 15, and several others that I'll leave out cause I've more than done my part." - first of all, I am afraid that 5 "votes" do not justify such distinction, when it was not really discussed by the rest of participants. Second, well, do you seriously claim that support 26 ("Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not."), support 46 ("keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors.") or even oppose 6 ("It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do.") justify such distinction? In no "vote" that you mention was any different approach to logged-in and not-logged-in users proposed or advocated!

"All of the points that I mentioned at the end gained consensus either in this RFC (ex: make it easier to turn it off, easier to edit the file description, remaining technical issues, and need for another survey - if you don't mind I'll leave it to you to find the specific comments)" - sorry, but just because something was tangentially proposed in the discussion does not mean that it has consensus. There might have been users who do not agree, but avoided things that were "offtopic". Therefore, I do not find your approach suitable for closing discussions.

"Finally I will emphasize that in a close review the burden of proof is on the challengers, so I would appreciate arguments backed up by actual evidence." - I do happen to think that I have offered some. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does.

I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF, for example I counted support #68 and the second part of support #65, among others. What I discounted are comments which didn't contribute to the formation of consensus, because they didn't bring any reasoned argument to the discussion (which includes dismissive or angry comments when their arguments (if any) are expressed elsewhere in a reasoned way). Regarding support #71, you got the number wrong, it was support #73, but since you mentioned it, the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction.

The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC, so it was about more than just oppose #2 (some of them address the "complex cases argument", essentially that it's primarily a TLDR issue that isn't germane to media viewer).

Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well.

The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus.

I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users. Cenarium (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"The length of a comment doesn't make its strength, its substance does." - sure. Did anyone claim otherwise?

"I didn't discount votes about what you call long term relationship with WMF, or dynamics between the community and the WMF" - OK, that's a bit clearer, although it would be far more clear after seeing a list.

"the view of a single IP should be considered, but it is insufficient on its own to ascertain reader satisfaction." - yet it was enough to make a participant change his mind. It counts more than your personal view about needs of readers (which, by the way, should have no weight at all). And it is not merely opinion of one IP, but a pattern of reader feedback, with a challenge of evidence used to claim that "Media Viewer is useful to readers.". It shows that this claim is not as uncontroversial, as you claim in the closing statement. And if you have ignored that much of this "vote", that does make me question the rest of your work (that hasn't been presented for us to check). Also, since that claim was so important to your close, mishandling of this "vote" alone can call the whole close into question.

"The weighing of arguments with respect to copyright also included the comments made in the previous RFC" - so, you took one discussion with a rather clear consensus to one side, added another discussion (with a lower weight) that had simply overwhelming consensus to the same side, and got no consensus? Sorry, but it doesn't look very believable. Something must have gone wrong.

"Those voters would not have made a distinction between unregistered and registered users if they didn't think it was warranted, and there has been explicit criticism of the RFC format as well." - but they didn't make a distinction.

"The points I mentioned were concerns recognized on both sides, or noncontroversial (e.g. featured pictures) so didn't need loads of discussions to get consensus." - they still need discussion about them, even if it is just "I propose X." followed by silence.

"I will gladly provide a more detailed list of arguments with their weighing if it is requested by uninvolved users." - why only by uninvolved users? And why in plural? It shouldn't be much of an effort, as you must have made the list while closing the discussion. You just create an impression (hopefully, wrong) that there is something worth hiding there... It is very easy to demonstrate that it is wrong. Just upload the file with it and give a link here. It is not like closer doesn't have to defend his own close, when it is, at least, counterintuitive.

And there is still that part about issues (or "votes") that were discounted, because of changed situation. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I just wanted to point out that the only uninvolved users are Hobit and Sladen (all others either commented in the RFC, or for Mdann52, closed it previously), and neither Hobit nor Sladen asked for an overturn. I will also point out that the previous close review was advertized in a non-neutral way at village pump (proposals) in a new section. While this didn't affect the previous close review, for which agreement was wide, the users who commented there were subsequently individually notified about the present close review. Although the individual notifications were neutral, this may affect the present close review since the individuals notified were from a group biased by the previous non-neutral advertizing. Only two users who commented here were not notified in this way, they are Fluffernutter and Sladen, none of them asked for an overturn. Cenarium (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the several involved but the review closer usually discounts those. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but I thought I would share my findings since I had checked myself. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this ad hominem (and yes, it is ad hominem - you argue that arguments should be ignored because of who their authors are) mean that you do not really have a good answer to the arguments themselves (for example, the ones I have given)..?

But let's look at the opinions of users whom you consider to be uninvolved. Both Hobit and Sladen indicated that they do not really care that much (as one might suspect, that often explains why uninvolved users are uninvolved). They didn't say they want the close to be overturned, but they didn't say they endorse it either. Fluffernutter is oppose 5.

Furthermore, one can construct other similar arguments. For example, "One of two users whose opinion started with 'endorse close' is oppose 11, another one is the previous closer, who closed in the same way.". What does that tell us? Only that ad hominem is not a strong argument... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to review the definition of ad hominem, which consists in commenting on the character of a person, not quite the same thing as noting that several commentators participated in the RFC whose close is being reviewed. I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations. Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote. Cenarium (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

"I stated in my edit summary that I would reply later (I'm taking a Christmas break), but this won't take long as your answer is essentially an annotated list of long quotations." - I am happy to hear that. Oh, and, since you gave me an excuse - merry Christmas (to you and to other participants)!

"Contrary to your suggestion, I didn't single out the commentators based on their vote." - I don't see where I suggested that. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, Martinyas Pastasius, your arguments site no policy, so your arguments are not good. You also point to factually unsupported arguments - such arguments are not good. Your arguments are also contrary to CONLIMITED, NOVOTE, IDONTLIKEIT, and the instructions at VPT, not to mention CONEXCEPT. There is no ad hominem -- the involved arguments, such as you and I and Alsee, et al., in review, are generally discounted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess you are not actually quoting my arguments and policy, because you expect that the closer will ignore your arguments anyway? As you wish... Although I do hope that your arguments (or lack of them, if you do not want to present them) will be taken into account. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 02:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

It's just that arguing and arguing and arguing until you impose the close you want is seen through - as will be that you have no policy nor facts. You dislike it, that's already well understood. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Kashmiri Muslims

Heavy edit war is on. Protection needed. RFPP was filed more than 12 hours back. Some accounts need blocking also for edit warring. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Protection done. Some of the accounts have already been blocked as sockpuppets, and I'll be filing a request for checkuser, since at least one of the not-currently-blocked accounts has literally no edits other than on this page. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Turns out that a checkuser already blocked one such account, so I just asked him directly for a check of the other. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

And I've done so. Might require a couple eyes to keep an eye on it, as there could be more sleepers, and the range is highly dynamic and active in any case. NativeForeigner ^Talk 04:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was IP 77.8.92.117 not blocked for edit warring ? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 04:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Probably best asked to @5 albert square:. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I only blocked the one user I was aware of. I didn't see any reports to AIV regarding any other editors. Sorry--5 albert square (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that the first user was blocked from AIV report. I found the RFPP for this article, when I was submitting one of my own request. Since edit war was heavy and RFPP request was not being answered since long, I posted it here. Regarding why IP 77.. was not blocked; I assumed that admins must be checking user edit history/article histories etc to find out any other guilty parties (especially in edit war cases) before handing down any block. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 08:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Vigyani, I didn't block the IP, because it was fighting sockpuppets. See WP:3RRNO, which says that the 3RR provision doesn't include Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. All of these usernames and IPs, except 77.8.92.117, were obviously sockpuppets of Imkan125, who had been blocked before all this began. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

University class

I've recently noticed this news story about a university class editing articles relating to "Race, Femininity and Representation". Articles that have been affected would appear to include Squaw and Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning. Was the class registered with our scheme for such things? (I forget what it is but I know it exists. University ambassador?) By the sounds of it, a fair few unsuitable contributions have already been picked up but should we be concerned that some might be flying under the radar? - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Education program/Educators This is the thing you're referring to and that's what their educator should probably be linked to. From the news article: "aimed to inspire their students to rewrite — and create — a little history of their own". That sounds quite a lot like WP:NOTHERE. More broadly, it's interesting how the Education program takes this kind of topic/view promotion into account. There can be POV pushing that is fully academic (for instance Austrian/Keynesian economics). --Pudeo' 00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: there's a specialized noticeboard for this kind of stuff over at WP:ENI, I'm sure they'd like to get a look at it. ansh666 02:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

See also Chelsea Vowel, which is now up for deletion. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for not being aware of WP:ENI. Someone has now linked to this thread from there. Do we need to try to get hold of the professor and work out who has done what? - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Checking Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/sandbox suggests that MooseHuber (talk · contribs), Sapphire2685 (talk · contribs) and Bluedragonfly14 (talk · contribs) may be related to this class. Beemich (talk · contribs) also seems likely, based on edits at Squaw and Sn.wmst3311 (talk · contribs) based on edits at Chelsea Vowel. Perhaps others might be spotted by analysing contributions to articles in the categories that are common to these accounts. Given recent events involving me, I'm not the best-placed person to contact the professor. - Sitush (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:

1.1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

So there's no need for this use to have two accounts now, as he claimed he did his admin work under one sock account and edited under another? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: There are legitimate reasons for non-admins to operate more than one account, and I don't see particular reason that we should treat DP differently from other users here. Also, further discussion should probably go at the ArbCom noticeboard, as that's where ArbCom case results are normally discussed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Secret

In the hands of Oversight and Arbcom, thanks for reporting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

This just came across my watchlist. I am not sure that any administrative action is required at this time, but as I am heading out, it is worth others keeping an eye on. Thanks, and Merry Christmas to all. Go Phightins! 18:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC) Best to let Arb handle it at this point. --Rschen7754 18:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I see no legal threats in the contribution history, but I do see one oversighted edit. I assume arbcom knows what is going on and will act accordingly. Given the oversight of the edit I think admins lack the information to act. I suggest we just wait and see. Chillum 18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC) I will make sure the other arbitrators are aware. I wish Secret well in his future endeavors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizard squad

Given the dramatically increased worldwide media attention to this hacker group in the past 48 hours, and the clear trend in the debate, I request that an administrator consider an early close, so that efforts can be devoted to improving the article instead of saving it. A non-administrative close has been reverted. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Done - I've closed as a keep per WP:SNOW given the consensus in discussion and the sources identified Nick-D (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick-D. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It's quite WP:POV, "Lizard Squad is a black hat hacking group, known for their claims", but can't be edited due to protection. It makes claims of notoriety. If it's had a few mentions in the press then sure, a short article makes sense; but it is being blown out of proportion with weakly sources claims.

Wikipedia is in danger of making it famous, instead of documenting something already famous. Igor the facetious xmas bunny (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Warning for admins moving pages to create=sysop pages

Currently when an administrator moves a page to a salted (create=sysop) or a fully move or edit protected page (move=sysop/edit=sysop) they don't get a warning that they are overriding the protection. Before I file a bug, do others agree that this would be worthwhile? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think admins need to be told when they are doing something that only an admin can do. Ideally it would display the protection log, or at least the entry that protected it. Chillum 00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. When you edit a fully protected page, everything's different in color, so it's virtually impossible not to know that you're editing a protected page. Likewise, all other types of edits and logged items, in cases restricted to admins, ought to demonstrate the restriction clearly by some means or another. With something such as this, I'd like to see a warning page, something comparable to the warning you get from the edit filter when you do something that it doesn't like, although of course implemented differently. Something basically "This pagemove affects a fully protected page. Are you sure you want to do this?" And it would help to have something like this when creating blacklisted titles, too. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted titles is as good idea, hadn't though of that (which is for account creators and template editors as well). I was thinking something like the current warning (MediaWiki:Delete and move text) which is there when the target page exists but rather than link to the edit history it'll link to the protection log, plus (unless it's necessary in the code) there won't be a tick box. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I just want the software to tell me that I'm doing something that requires admin rights, either because I clicked a button to an admin-only page (e.g. protecting or deleting) or because it gives me some sort of warning or notice. Nyttend (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding my endorsement with the comment that this topic was triggered by a real-life event that recently happened to me. I had no idea when I moved an article to what I thought was a non-existent title that it had been previously deleted and salted. Callanecc spotted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur, even just an extra warning after you enter the target page title would probably be helpful in letting unaware admins know they might be stepping into a contentious area. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC).

Sounds like a good idea to me. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A great idea in fact. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

UAA flagging bot opinions requested

At Usernames for Administrator Attention there is a discussion on removing some of the bot's flags due to low/negligible success rates, input is welcome. Sam Walton (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing regarding use of quote

Scoobydunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For the past 6 months, Scoobydunk has been almost exclusively arguing against the use of a particular quote in an article. I would like to propose that they be instructed by the community to back away from the subject and not argue further about the use of the Breitbart quote in America: Imagine the World Without Her. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as proposer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is absolutely ridiculous. SarekofVulcan has ignored his responsibilities as a closer and has now taken to a personal attack instead of upholding WP guidelines regarding closing an RFC. I had serious questions about the policies and rationale about his closing an RFC review and instead of answering those questions, he's ignored them for over a week. Furthermore, serious accusations require serious evidence and I don't see anything in WP:Tend that has to do with engaging in a discussion for an extended period of time. By no means is my participation in a discussion, which other have been in for longer, an example of tendentious editing. However, in reading WP:Tend I do see "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" and that's exactly what Sarek has done. He's not only ignored questions as an editor, but has ignored them as a closer in which he's required by WP guidelines to fully respond and disclose the policies that support his rationale. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Scoobydunk and a couple others have been completely unwilling to accept the result of a previous RfC and have been endlessly trying to show that the RfC is invalid or wear our the opposition until they get their preferred result. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Which part of WP:Tend is that a violation? Furthermore, WP policy allows me to have the RFC reviewed and the RFC didn't address anything regarding the inclusion of a quote from Ben Shapiro. Following WP policy is not a violation of WP:TEND and, once again, you haven't put forward anything to support that I'm in violation of WP:TEND. Scoobydunk (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Your argument now appears to be that the source is ok, but the quote from the source is not because the RfC did not address the quote only the source. The RfC and the review of the RfC did not go your way so now you are claiming that the RfC did not address this specific aspect. That is pretty tedious. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

85+ Overdue Move Requests

WP:RMCD is backlogged again, with more than 85 requests currently overdue. (Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_November#Worcester) should be closed as well.) -- Calidum 17:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Username gymnastics

I'm posting this here not necessarily as an accusation of wrongdoing, but because after looking at the guidelines, I'm still a little unclear and would like more experienced editors to offer their opinion on this matter. According to User:Sławomir Biały's userpage, he is semi-retired and according to his contribution list hasn't made an edit since August 2013. However, as you can see here for example, he is, in fact, actively editing. On closer inspection, Sławomir Biały is operating an alternate account User:Slawekb which is redirected back to User:Sławomir Biały, while the editing history remains with Slawekb. Near the top of the userpage for Sławomir Biały is notice of the alternate account, however, it's not immediately apparent (at least to me) and takes a little digging to figure out what's going on here. Is this an acceptable configuration and use of multiple accounts? – JBarta (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it I don't see anything technically wrong with this; they've ceased editing from Sławomir Biały and are only editing from the other account, an account they have a legitimate reason for having (used when special characters aren't available). That said, it seems unnecessarily confusing to be redirecting from the account they're editing from to the one they're not, it would make more sense to me for them to just abandon the other account and use Slawekb full time. The message stating that they edit from the second account is also not as clear as I'd prefer it to be, buried amongst a paragraph well below the semi-retired template. I would urge Sławomir to move their user and user talk to the account they're editing from and continue to not use the old account. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

See [6] for prior discussion. As the account notice is the four sentence in a blob which includes statements about watchlists and email, it's easily missed. I'm empathic with the desire to sign posts as spelled natively with using a more easily used ASCII character account name, but it does make understanding a take page history confusing. I'll also note that WP:Flow, as currently planned, will eliminate custom signatures, removing this choice. Simply making the alternate account standalone and prominent seems like a reasonable compromise to me. NE Ent 01:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree most strongly with the premise of this entire inquest. I have had this username configuration for almost five years now, and been a productive editor all this time (and for a considerable time before that, laboring under the original account exclusively). Now a small group of administrators wants to legislate community norms retroactively? Nonsense. If it does not violate some explicit guideline, decided by Wikipedia community consensus, then by default my username configuration is reasonable, and well within the norms of acceptable userspace activity. The reasons for this configuration are clear to all of the participants in this discussion, and everyone (hopefully) agrees that these reasons exemplify the mandate of our great project, to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In particular, one of the Foundation's goals has been to include many different cultures and ethnicities. I will not change the way my name is spelled to satisfy some perceived bureaucratic irregularity. The very notion that someone on this noticeboard would even suggest such a thing is positively shameful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, was baffled by this editor's confusing signature, which makes it difficult to peruse their edit history. I encourage the editor to reconfigure things to make things easier for other editors, in the spirit of collaboration. Just use the Sławomir Biały account, and all will be well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm a bit lost as to why you'd create a new account but then redirect back to an account you no longer edit with? ... Why not make a WP:FRESHSTART and stick to one account? ... Also as noted above your signature is bloody confusing –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year}
• I would say that the user needs to fix 2 issues:
  1. The talk page redirect should be reversed - that is, the active user talk page should be that of the active account.
  2. The sig should link directly to the active account, not to a page which redirects to the inctive one.
• Other than this, I see no problems. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Requesting three uninvolved administrators for a panel to close a contentious deletion discussion

Would any three administrators volunteer to work together to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination) when the time comes? It is highly contentious, and given previous issues, such a panel is the only way to guarantee certainty. RGloucester — ☎ 23:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'll do it. I'm uninvolved and I know something about the subject. Black Kite (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• I'm happy to, though if more experienced admins are interested then I have no qualms in allowing them. Sam Walton (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a start. We need one more volunteer. Step right up! RGloucester — ☎ 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to make the third. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sad, the article for deletion has been in existence since 2006. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, you three. You're the delegated lot. I hope you can work together. You ought coordinate how you're going to go about this. I'll post a notice at the AFD about the panel closure. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Spartaz, Samwalton9, and Black Kite: Pinging to make sure the closers get this notice. RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any problem in using the AFDs talk page to discuss the closure. To be honest, it's probably better to have that transparency given the previous history (which I've just read up on). It's got a day and a half to run yet, anyway - was opened at 15:13 on the 22nd. Black Kite (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just a warning in advance to the closing trio: if RGloucester doesn't like the way you close it, he will do everything possible to overturn the close -- that's what he did to the RfC on the article's talk page: he closed it even though he was involved in the discussion, Jimbo reopened it, then later an uninvolved non-admin closed it and RGloucester overturned the close. It took an AN/I thread to force RGloucester to accept the close, which was endorsed (and re-closed) by an admin.

  Just wanted you to know the context here. Forewarned is forearmed. BMK (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not true at all. There was no RfC, and your whole little description is a gross oversimplification. More battleground behaviour on your part. I'm not rehashing this again. I didn't need to be "forced" to do anything. You'd be wise to keep your mouth shut, and away from me. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that RGloucester made at least 22 comments on Jimbo's talk page about this dispute, plus who knows how many comments at other venues. It is clear that the editor cares deeply about this matter, and knows the topographic features of the battleground very well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, another from the groundnut gallery. Hello. I've not put my best hat on, but I'll do my best to impress regardless. I don't know much of anything, other than that I've simply asked a panel of uninvolved administrators to close this God-damned discussion, and that's all. Please take your associated comments about my horrid character, and muddied hats elsewhere. Thanks! RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)