Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

To contact bureaucrats to alert them of an urgent issue, please post below.
For sensitive matters, you may contact an individual bureaucrat directly by e-mail.

You may use this tool to locate recently active bureaucrats.

Click here to add a new section

The Bureaucrats' noticeboard is a place where items related to the Bureaucrats can be discussed and coordinated. Any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here. Please start a new section for each topic.

This is not a forum for grievances. It is a specific noticeboard addressing Bureaucrat-related issues. If you want to know more about an action by a particular bureaucrat, you should first raise the matter with them on their talk page. Please stay on topic, remain civil, and remember to assume good faith. Take extraneous comments or threads to relevant talk pages.

If you are here to report that an RFA or an RFB is "overdue" or "expired", please wait at least 12 hours from the scheduled end time before making a post here about it. There are a fair number of active bureaucrats; and an eye is being kept on the time remaining on these discussions. Thank you for your patience.

To request that your administrator status be removed, initiate a new section below.

Crat tasks
RfAs	0
RfBs	0
Overdue RfBs	0
Overdue RfAs	0
BRFAs	14
Approved BRFAs	0

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

It is 04:11:50 on November 24, 2024, according to the server's time and date.

RFA closures and scheduled ending time

Not an issue, the fact that a few RfA's have been closed a few minutes early is not an indication of abuse or a problem. Closing discussions early is a routine part of wikipedia and attempting to enforce strict adherence is a waste of time.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:RFA I would like to discuss the nature of end times for voting. In general, bureaucrats have taken some liberty with the end times, often closing the matter a little early or late, especially when the consensus is clear. It seems to me that it may be best to wait until the end time for the nomination has actually passed before promoting or removing a nomination. Given the number of bureaucrats who follow RFA, the likelihood that a new admin will have to wait more than a day or two for promotion seems low. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC) That's currently what happens at the moment; crats typically only close RfAs after !voting time has passed. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Looking at 46 successful nominations over the last six months (May to Oct), ten nine were closed or placed on hold before the scheduled ending time. (+2h +2m +11m +25m -44m -32m +1h +1h +12m +2h +5m +54m -49m -2h24+2h24 -4m +2h +24m +1m +0m -12m -12m +44m +4m -6m +1h +5m +31m +11m +4h +3h +15m +2h +26m +4h +1h +0m -1h15 +6h +0m +5h +1h30m -5h07 +0m -2m +6h) –xenotalk 18:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think half an hour makes much difference, but I don't think it would be best practice to close as successful with much more than that left on the clock. It doesn't look like a big issue, though—the majority seem to be closed a little while after their scheduled end time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC) As a guilty party for some of those, I will say that it's all common sense. Many of the 30m+ ones above are usually 95% support or better, where the chance of failure is getting very close to 0. Think of it as an early present. Is 30m really worth waiting for, when the consensus is clear? (X! · talk)  · @980  ·  22:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC) An exception is clearly this close by User:Nihonjoe as sucessful in the discretionary zone at 78.6 percent nearly 2.5 hours before time was up. This obviously should not happen. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps I'm reading things wrong, but that one appears to have been closed 2.5 hours late. That diff clearly shows the close time to be 10:01 am, and it was closed at 12:25 pm. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry I was going by xeno's timings. Should always learn to check these things. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Mea culpa, stand on me. –xenotalk 13:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Idly wondering

Wifione ....... Leave a message 03:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – There seems to be a consensus that this question can and will be addressed if and when it arises. Hans Adler 22:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Whether the weather of Rlevse's departure would be classified as cloudy. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Absolutely. No doubt in my mind he was generally an ok bureaucrat, but this departure was cloudy without a doubt. Aiken (talk) 11:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I did not read everything that happened (hence I was surprised to read this) but was there any real effort to remove his flags that was foiled by his resignation? Iirc, "cloudy" means that someone resigned to avoid flag-removal sanctions that would have happened otherwise. Regards SoWhy 11:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC) "Cloudy" means MZMcBride seems to wish to stir things up. I would suggest he lays it on the table in the proper manner, not silly hints here there and everywhere, or just leaves it. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I'd say generally sunny with a few clouds here and there. Also, the odd shower here and there, but mainly dry. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 262° 40' 45" NET 17:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Is this grave-dancing really necessary? → ROUX ₪ 11:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) If MZMcBride wishes to grave dance it will only reflect badly on himself. Starting this thread in this way here already looks poor to me. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Oh God. You're back? It isn't grave dancing to wonder whether someone who storms out will be allowed back in. Everyone, do try to not feed the diva. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I don't think the mainspace concerns would have lead to sanctions resulting in the removal of his bureaucrat privileges. –xenotalk 13:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I think it's interesting that you say that given, e.g., the FlyingToaster RFA. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC) As I recall, the problems there were more widespread and were used in direct support of the RFA in question; in the present case, that remains to be seen. Note that I am in no way excusing plagiarism, but my thoughts are that unless there was much more to it, the one or two cases would not have lead to the removal of sysop/bureaucrat privileges. This is, of course, just my humble opinion and in light of the procedures in place, views of multiple bureaucrats would be taken into account before determining whether to re-grant userrights on request. –xenotalk 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I am completely uncomfortable with the idea of an arbitrator who violates copyright and plagiarises, and would have supported any attempt (i.e. arbcom) to have the user rights removed. These positions come with trust - how can we trust him after this? RFA candidates have failed over minor paraphrasing concerns in single DYK entries - this is a FA we're talking about, in addition to at least one DYK. His rude and dismissive response was completely unbecoming of any editor. He stormed off in a huff when the copyvios were brought to light and threw his toys out of the pram along the way. If this wasn't cloudy, I don't know what could possibly be. Aiken (talk) 14:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I don't see the need to be self righteous on this. Anyway this is not the place to have this debate, please if you must take it elsewhere. This should be a community decision not a crat decision. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC) As we stand, Rlevse can come back here and request his user rights back. As you say, it should be a community decision, not a bureaucrat one, so he should go through RFA/B like anybody else. Aiken (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) "Arbitrator" is a non sequitur since we are discussing bureaucrat privilege. Do note that the term "cloudy" has been largely deprecated from the information page in favour of the current verbiage ("...may have resigned for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions.") I don't think an extended debate on this at this point is a productive use of time, since Rlevse (talk · contribs) is not currently re-requesting privileges; rest assured that they wouldn't be re-granted without discussion. –xenotalk 14:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC) ^-- This is probably the most insightful comment in this thread. After reading it I don't see any need for further discussion. Hans Adler 18:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I wasn't aware any particular user rights were being discussed. He held a number of positions. I'm happy that you would allow a discussion, but I'm sure there are some bureaucrats who aren't so careful. This should surely be noted on the former admins page. Aiken (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The only privileges bureaucrats can re-grant are admin & bureaucrat - so discussion of the advanced privileges is off-topic and lies in the province of the Arbitration Committee. WP:RESYSOP #3 "strongly recommend[s] ... allow[ing] time for multiple bureaucrats to comment after the request was made before resysopping" and for-the-most--part this advice is followed except in uncontroversial situations. –xenotalk 14:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)No, it really shouldn't. It is obviously clear that there were a number of stressors were affecting Rlevse's judgement (to the point where I had actually considered asking a CU to double check that Rlevse hadn't lost control of his account, given how out-of-character his outbursts aimed at me were), and whatever those stressors were, he left Wikipedia of his own volition. Whether or not the problems related to copyvio would have led to sanctions, up to and including revocation of admin and other privileges, is quite simply an unknown quantity. If Rlevse elects to return, and if upon such return he wishes to regain his user privileges, at that time the crats can have a discussion (as granting +sysop is in their remit, as is regranting it after voluntary resignation), which may or may not include community input. It doesn't need to include community input because, as I said, it is the crat role to regrant, or not, admin rights which have been voluntarily resigned. I am not sure about how crat rights would be re-granted (though at a guess I would suspect that should crats and/or the community decline to regrant admin rights the crat flag would be similarly declined), and to my understanding the checkuser and oversight permissions were granted to Rlevse's account in his capacity as Arbitrator, which he resigned and I would guess cannot reassume by fiat; he would need to be re-elected. This entire thread is unseemly and rude. What all of this means is: there is absolutely no need to discuss this at this time, and there is no need to figuratively slam the door after Rlevse has walked out of it and paste a sign saying "NO RLEVSE ALOUD!!11!1111!." → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I think people have kicked Rlevse while he's down enough; I wish they'd stop. <--what Roux said, in handy template form. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Seconded. If no-one has anything startlingly new and useful to add, perhaps we can now close this thread. --Dweller (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Thirded I think it's time we let our dear friend retire in peace. It's over, until next time. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 332° 10' 15" NET 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

RFA canvassing

Does this count as canvassing for a particular result in an RFA? I supported the RFA (which is due to close in a few hours), so I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As the talk page has 473 watchers, and the user full well knows this, I'd say "yes". --Mkativerata (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree. It's his talk page. Arbcom elections have similar campaigns and I don't see the difference here. Besides, it could end up positive for the candidate. AD 00:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear canvassing. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It is, but I didn't see evidence that it had a major effect on the course of the RFA. A number of opposes and supports were added after the incident with no apparent connection to it. bibliomaniac15 04:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear: are users forbidden to express their opinion on an RfA on their own usertalk page? Are they permitted to voice their opinions so long as their userpage has < n watchers, where n =... what, exactly? MastCell ^Talk 05:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just expressing one's own opinion on one's own user talk page is not considered canvassing. If he had proceeded to post that same opinion on multiple other talk pages, that would be canvassing. This is very clearly not canvassing. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Responding specifically to MastCell's point (despite the indenting), the correct place to express an opinion on an RFA is at the RFA page set up for that purpose. Expressing an opinion elsewhere risks skewing the results by drawing an unrepresentative sample of people to the RFA. Carcharoth (talk) 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well yebut - wasn't this editor only recently the subject of an ArbCase clarification which revolved around their use of their (well-watched) user-talk page to advocate certain edits by others, or suspicion thereof? Nothing in the recent ArbCom findings applies here, but it's a worrisome trend. Franamax (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. My opinion is that this is a clear case of canvassing for people to go and "say no" on that RFA (which has now closed). I appreciate that the canvassing came late in the day (only a few hours and a few comments before the close), so it had no appreciable effect, but it was still, in my opinion, an attempt to affect the result of the RFA. One way to find out would be to ask the editor in question why he made that edit and who he was addressing that edit to. There is also a clear difference between drawing people's attention to an RFA (sometimes acceptable depending on the context), and explicitly asking people to vote one way or the other (not acceptable, in my view).
• If you look at the history of the user talk page in question, there are a series of edits that are clearly addressed to a watching audience - which I see as a misuse of a user talk page. User talk pages should be for messages to the person whose page it is, or for short discussions that don't really fit anywhere else. User talk pages should not be a venue for centralised discussions best held elsewhere, and they should not be a place to make announcements to a group of users you know are watching your talk page. Finally, I disagree that there are not instances of opposes made to the RFA that likely appeared after the canvassing notice appeared on the user talk page. What I would do is look at the opposes that appeared after the notice was posted, and see whether those people normally vote in RFAs or not.
• To give another example of how a notice elsewhere draws people to a discussion: xeno notified the user of this discussion (thanks for doing that, xeno), and that could have prompted subsequent edits here by people watching that user talk page. That's nothing new, but the point I'm making here is that notices left on user talk pages, even your own user talk page, can act as notification to more people than just the user whose talk page it is. I think that WP:CANVASS should take that into account, if it doesn't already, but that would be a discussion for the talk page over there.
• As far as this matter goes, I would hope that the following happens: (1) Someone asks the editor why they made that edit and who they were talking to; (2) The distinction is made clear that the edit was not just drawing attention to the RFA, but was explicitly advocating opposition; (3) That bureaucrats say what they will do in future if a notice of this nature (or similar) appears elsewhere on-wiki at the start of an RFA (or point to previous discussions on this sort of thing).

Apologies for the length of this post, but I wanted to make my points clear. Carcharoth (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Arbs to try to influence the opinions of the community in this manner. Please try not to engage in contentious advocacy of this nature while there is a chance that it hurts your office. I am not entirely serious, obviously. Hans Adler 10:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think attempting to stretch WP:CANVASS to a new level to stop users posting opinions on processes on their own talkpage simply so User:William M. Connolley can recieve another bash over the head is poor. You might not like it but I see nothing in the behavioral guideline that covers this and what is more the RfA was within 5 hours of closing and the statement, as I am fairly sure William knew, had no chance of making any difference. What is more I don't think advocating a position is technically wrong, canvassing is wrong but not advocating your own position, please point me to the page that says otherwise. (please don't point me to WP:Advocacy because that is unrelated to specifying what your own position is on a wikipedia process which is clearly allowed) Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Assuming I am allowed to comment here (life is too short to read all the small print) I am inclined to say that anyone who adds a user talk page to their watch list does so at their own risk, it is still a user talk page with allowed liberties. Canvassing is approaching other people with your views, whereas people who have watched your talkpage have already asked the question. Within some limits people are free to express their views on stuff and it is a bit counterproductive to try to deal with a symptom rather than the problem. The problem is a mismatch (demonstrated by the numbers of talk pages watchers) between the number of people in the community are either interested, amused or enjoy being outraged by WMC's opinions and the view that Winston Smith should have no voice (as it were). Why not credit the rest of us with enough sense to see opinions in context? I have never seen many people running around to support WMC mindlessly, half the time he is disagreed with. --BozMo talk 09:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I moved from oppose to neutral in the RfA after a constructive discussion with Ling.Nut on his talkpage. There is no way any personal opinion WMC could have put on his talkpage would have changed me back to oppose. Polargeo 2 (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Forbidding users from posting their reasonable opinions on their own talk pages is an idea that is so bad that I don't even know where to begin. May I suggest that you, Carcharoth, in the future run all public statements on-Wiki by me before making them? Use form X-15-666.1984, in triplicate, please. I promise that I will quickly process such requests and let you know, often within the same quarter, if the statement, made by an influential and well-watched member of the community, will potentially exercise undue undue influence on the mindless masses so as to lead to results not desirable for The Community, or whether it is harmless fluff that you are allowed to post. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth: About these "discussions best held elsewhere" — exactly where would you suggest when editors are restricted to their own talk pages, and you would further restrict what can be discussed there? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors restricted to their own talk pages should be addressing the reasons they were blocked. If someone who is blocked wants to comment at an RFA, they should get their priorities straight and first address the reasons why they were blocked. Once that is done, they would likely be unblocked, and then they could comment on the RFA. User talk pages are not a space for people to carry on participating in the encyclopedia while they are blocked, but that is exactly what happened here. If they don't accept the reason they were blocked, fine, appeal the block, or wait for the block to expire, but don't spend the period of time until the block expires trying to circumvent the block by addressing a talk page audience and attempting to influence the outcome of matters elsewhere, including an RFA they happen to spot and want to express an opinion on. Seriously, if any other blocked editor had put up a notice telling his talk page watchers to go and vote no on an RFA, what would have happened? Anyway, I am busy now until Friday evening, but I hope that more bureaucrats will comment here than have done so far (I think two have commented so far, one retracting his earlier statement). My initial post here was a question asking the bureaucrats as a group whether this edit was canvassing, but typically the discussion has got out of control with people drawing incorrect comparison with ArbCom elections (a completely different kettle of fish to RFAs) and using ridicule and satire to divert attention from the real issues here. Put simply, I saw what I still see as blatant non-neutral canvassing related to an RFA, and I reported it here to the bureaucrats. I am still hopeful that the bureaucrats as a group will be prepared to give an answer to the questions I posed above. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, if any other blocked editor had put up a notice telling his talk page watchers to go and vote no on an RFA, what would have happened? - most likely, nobody would have given a hoot, and rightly so. I'll have to say, I'm appalled by this. What happened to I don't think it would be appropriate for me to do anything other than report that edit here for consideration? Instead you go off on several long rants that have nothing to do with the outcome of the RfA, and all with speculating about the motives behind and appropriateness of another editors comments. Sorry, but that does not look like good faith to me. Your complaint is specious to begin with, and this is an inappropriate forum to discuss editor behaviour. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The notion that CANVASSING isn't broken on a fair number RfA's is a joke. It is routinely broken, it is just that people do so a little more subtly than done here... how often do people goto somebody's page and make a post "about your !vote at X's RfA" or something along those lines. I would guess that somewhere between 10 and 20% of RfA's have at least one person making this type of post.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tip of the iceberg

A quick dip through some talk pages shows that this problem is much worse than any of us feared. For example User:Antandrus, who will be familiar to many of you as a highly disruptive editor, uses his talk page to tell Ling.Nut If people can't see how someone like you would be a benefit to the project with admin tools, I just shake my head in bafflement.[1] And User:SandyGeorgia, another notorious troublemaker, regularly posts her views on which Arbcom candidates deserve support. Carcharoth is right; editors must stop expressing their sentiments on these and other policy matters anywhere but on the page expressly intended for this purpose. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, a little-publicised tactic (cf. WP:BEANS) is for much-watched editors to ostensibly support one candidate in the certain knowledge that those that hate them - and sadly there will always be some - will vote in the exact opposite direction. WP:Reverse canvassing represents a real danger to the Wikimodel and must be sought out and stamped upon.

But perhaps the most iniquitious example of all is when the much-watched editor says nothing at all. Naturally, as his watchers hang on his every word, they can divine his intentions and vote in droves in precisely the direction he wants. It's high time the applicable guideline "Canvassing by stealth" was promoted to policy so Action Can Be Taken.  Roger ^talk 13:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be really happy if people stopped publishing their ArbCom "guides". I think it is rude to talk about somebody behind their back. RFA comments belong on the RFA page. ArbCom comments belong on the designated question, answer and comment pages. Posting to one's own talk page (or user space) in order to stimulate one's friends to vote a certain way is not in accordance with the spirit of Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never been wild about them either, especially as the candidates are supposed to just grin and bear it when people trot out inaccuracies or misconceptions.  Roger ^talk 13:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mere inaccuracies or misconceptions would be an improvement. Some of the guides are used to settle scores or grind axes by people hung up on particular conflicts or issues. Jehochman ^Talk 13:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that too.  Roger ^talk 13:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it Arbcom election guides are part of the process e.g. User:Juliancolton/Arb and actually included in the template Template:ACE 2009 guides, we are encouraged to go along and see what our favourite user of the moment thinks about the candidates. Whether you think it is rude or not WMC posting his own opinion on his own talkpage is not something to be dealt with here in isolation and would need a major overhaul of policy. I am not against such an overhaul as I disliked the guides intensely. Maybe the best solution is to continue to allow this on users own pages but as soon as these user opinions become offically linked to that is where the problem really lies. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've heard occasional rumors that inaccuracies and misconceptions can occur in the real world too (tho I've never seen such Wiki-specific things as score settling or axe grinding occurring off wiki, of course). Like pretty much everything else, this is obviously an Important Problem^TM that new, more restrictive rules and more activist administrating will fix. I suggest we follow the lead of our betters in the real world, and create free speech zones to make sure these troublemakers expressing their opinions can't actually affect any change. Seeing how perfectly such an attitude has worked in the real world has restored my faith in our ability to create a Utopia here through the strict enforcement of more rules. Energizing the usually-reluctant admin corps to stick their noses in more places, and giving them the tools needed to warn, lecture, and block people for expressing their opinions anywhere but the "designated page for their opinion" is an excellent idea, and I don't see any possibility of it being misused as another tool to attack opponents and people whose opinions differ from our own. RFA is currently inhabited by a cross section of people that perfectly mirrors the editing community at large, and any comments by outsiders that could affect what goes on in that perfectly-run process is so obviously a bad idea that I won't waste all our time explaining why that is. If new people show up at RFA, people who don't usually participate, they might bring rudeness and foolishness to a currently polite and wise process.

Of course, technically I don't think WP:BN is the designated place to plot out the exact methods we're going to use to stifle discussion we don't approve of, so you're all blocked indefinitely until you learn to be good little Borg-lettes and do what you're told, where you're told to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but did either of you fill in their X-15-666.1984s? I certainly don't remember authorizing these statements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you not checked your sekret mail? Please feel free to remove my comment if there any any errors on the form. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's start writing up Wikipedia:McCarthyism before it is too late. Count Iblis (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with those who would like to put a stop to these things, though I do not think it is possible. Too often, people use them to grind personal axes, under the cover of highly dubious interpretations of policy which they say that the candidate's in violation of.--23:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs)

WP:McCarthyism is lacking in i18n. I propose WP:17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) ("because of 1,996 party members present, 1,108 were arrested, and about two thirds of those executed within three years"). Maybe we can completely wipe out all those old-wikipedians who got the encyclopedia to this stage. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)