Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
 Skip to TOC • Skip to bottom 
Welcome to the Administrators' noticeboard
Are you in the right place? Using this page
Shortcuts:
  • This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest.
  • Please start new threads under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title: ==Informative title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion.
  • You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion.
    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.
  • If no comments have been made within 48 hours, your post and any responses will be automatically archived.
  • Please sign all contributions, using four tilde characters "~~~~".
  • If discussion is already ongoing elsewhere or if there is a more natural location for a discussion, please continue the discussion there, and put a short note with a link to the relevant location on this page.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, please place your comments on this page and they will be addressed.
What these pages are not

These pages are not the place to raise content disputes or reports of abusive behaviour. Administrators are not referees, and have limited authority to deal with abusive editors. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution procedure editors should follow where possible. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. If you are here to report a violation of Wikipedia's policies on civility or personal attacks, go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.

Please do not post slurs of any kind on this page and note that messages which egregiously violate Wikipedia's civility or personal attacks policies will be removed.
Centralized discussion
  • RfC about adding a "de facto" section to the official list of banned users at WP:BANNED
  • Proposal to standardize the use of {{reflist}} and deprecate <references />.
  • RFC on new watchlist feature
  • Straw poll on which awards, if any, should be excluded when assessing the notability of pornographic actors.
  • RFC on amending notability guidelines for Mixed Martial Arts events.
  • Proposal to change guideline on how big a Talk page should be before archiving.
  • Proposal to establish a closure review on move requests.
  • Proposal to enable Reference Tooltips by default
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages


Certified pages

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f - Significant conduct issues

General
See also
Click here to start a new discussion thread
Archives This page is automatically archived by Cluebot III. Threads with no replies in 48 hours may be automatically moved.

Contents



This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.


[edit] Requests for closure

[edit] RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge

Would an uninvolved admin please close and summarize the RFC at Talk:Extrinsic_extensor_muscles_of_the_hand#RFC_on_reversion_of_merge?--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron

Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Article Rescue Squadron? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User's archive of deleted articles and other MfDs

Would an admin (or admins) close:

  1. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) YesY Closed. Jafeluv (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wtshymanski/Griping YesY Done Drmies (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:PuppyOnTheRadio/score thing2 - YesY Closed by Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 16:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wimpy Kid (2nd nomination) - YesY Closed by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 23:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  5. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Chemical ASCII-art - YesY Closed by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  6. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User's archive of deleted articles - YesY Closed by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 12:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Big Bang#RfC: Which draft should be selected?

Please close Talk:Big Bang#RfC: Which draft should be selected?, thanks!! – Lionel (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

N Not done, thirty days have not yet elapsed, and the latest comment is only four days old.  Sandstein  09:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nation of Islam RfC

Could an uninvolved administrator close the RfC at Talk:Nation of Islam#RfC. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 30#The Queen's Award for Enterprise: International Trade (Export) (1966)

This is archived but there is still one DRV open. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Reposting this as it was removed under the mistaken assumption that it was the same DRV from another post. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ

Would an admin summarize Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ? A close was requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 1#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ, and the RfC was delisted due to inactivity but was not summarized. A summary will allow the subject and participants to have a third-party list the RfC's findings.

When I saw http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=493621214#User:Fae at WP:AN, I reviewed the RfC/U and found that unlike the most recent RfC/Us at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive it had not been summarized.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer#Summary and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoodDay are two excellent examples of how complex RfC/Us are summarized. Cunard (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion originally closed by Nobody Ent (talk · contribs). Left a note for him. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 10:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No consensus was reached. I closed it per iar as no one else seemed willing to it. My more personal summary may be found here. Nobody Ent 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Added a note to the top of the page pointing to the summary of the RFC/U [1], and I think this can be marked as {{done}}. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 21:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Your close was (correctly) reverted by another editor because the close merely linked to WT:Requests for comment/Fæ#summary which is a very sarcastic (but accurate) summary of the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Umm, no, it's not correct to revert in such a situation. It's fine to disagree but not to unilaterally overturn it. Prioryman (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW it's not even my close, I just linked to the closer's summary. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether it was meant to be sarcastic or serious or a mixture of both, a comment that refers to other editors as "a bunch of homophobes" should have been stricken from the RfC's talk page entirely, not propped up as an honest evaluation of the matter. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I would have thought it obvious that "a bunch of homophobes" was Nobody Ent's (admittedly sarcastic) summary of one of the arguments put forward in the RfC/U. It's very obvious from the context and tone of his summary that he's attempting to reflect the various arguments in a relatively lighthearted fashion. I'm sure that some will be upset that he's declined to take the outcome of the RfC/U seriously, which is quite understandable given what a circus it was and what a thorough mess it ended up being. Prioryman (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding "reading comprehension needed?", I would say that our comprehension is working just fine, thanks. I addressed the possibility of sarcasm in my comment here earlier, but wil note again that even if it was intended was sarcasm, it was still inappropriate. It would be preferable if someone else provided a mature and serious summation of the RfC. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Super_Tuesday,_2012#Merge

Discussion was open for more than one month is inactive since 26 April 2012. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 15:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Another request for closure

Moved from AN. Jafeluv (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like someone to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f; there is a "view" subscribed to by a large enough number of editors at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#View_by_Drmies and a move to close at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f#Move_to_close. Editor in question has had ample opportunity to show a dedication to cease disruptive editing (in this case, filibustering and stalling) and has not seized that opportunity. This has been running since 12 May. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agent00f#Move to close

Moved from later on this board. JJB 19:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

After attempting multiple times to get some sort of acknowledgment of the issues at hand we see a widining circle of disruption on multiple pages (Now at WP:SPI) therefore I request an uninvolved admin to step in and close down the soapbox. In no way am I advocating for any action to be taken in response to the contents of the RfC/U. I am simply asking for the closure as it is obvious to me that there will be no negotiated agreement between the certifiers and the respondant. Hasteur (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Deaths in 2012

An RfC concerning reference style that was opened on April 12. Danger! High voltage! 22:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Site xuarez.comoj.com and other requests

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist has a severe backlog; the oldest entries date from January. Would an admin (or admins) review:

  1. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Site xuarez.comoj.com
  2. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#A History of Broadcasting in the Philippines From World War II to the Birth of Philippine Television
  3. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Let Me Google That For You - YesY Done by Hu12 (talk · contribs) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  4. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Two Village Residents in Swedish Lapland, Where The Train Stops
  5. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/did-airman-randy-phillips-err-posting-video-coming-out-dad
  6. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#s14.invisionfree.com/Conchologist_Forum/ar/t2125.htm
  7. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#backupurl.com/zo9cxt
  8. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Calendar Published by AIP on lulu.com
  9. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Statsheet
  10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Clipmarks
  11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#cbronline: 26 April 1992 article
  12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/nancy-s-story
  13. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Request for edit on Denver
  14. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#www.justjaredjr.com/2012/04/01/taylor-swift-kids-choice-awards-2012 on article Taylor Swift
  15. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#bit.ly/wlafghan2
  16. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#www.fort-kochi.com
  17. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#outrate.net
  18. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Traditio-ru.org
  19. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#examiner.com on Terry Riley
  20. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#z4.invisionfree.com
  21. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#uservoice.com
  22. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#UKMIX page
  23. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Online-Scratch-Card
  24. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Uncensored Interviews interview with Poni Hoax
  25. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Bad 25 Release Details PDF
  26. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#LMGTFY.com on article RTFM - YesY Done by Hu12 (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 09:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  27. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#ehow.com/how_4621475_almond-jelly-dessert.html - YesY Done by Hu12 (talk · contribs). Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing an entry, please post a comment on the requester's talk page because the requester may no longer be watching the page after such a lengthy period of time. MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators may be useful. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Taipei#RFC on Taiwan/Republic of China

I imagine this is a fairly clear-cut 'no consensus' result, but it would be helpful for an uninvolved administrator to rubber-stamp this expired and de-listed RFC. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 05:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 10

A deletion review focusing on copyright and fair use as it applies to Dungeons & Dragons.—S Marshall T/C 18:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#Archiving talk pages? The RfC is listed at Template:Centralized discussion and no discussion has occurred since 18 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:User pages#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages? The RfC was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion and the last comment was on 20 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Time to make WP:BRD policy?

Resolved

Would an admin assess the consensus and summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 95#Time to make WP:BRD policy?, which was listed and archived from Template:Centralized discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done. NW (Talk) 16:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI

Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 13 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requested articles#RFC

Would an admin summarize the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested articles#RFC? The discussion was listed at Template:Centralized discussion; the last comment was on 17 May 2012. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#RFC on non-free content handling, in particular in history revisions

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 55#RFC on non-free content handling, in particular in history revisions with regard to the questions asked by FT2 (talk · contribs)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice

Would an admin close Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice and provide guidance about how a subsequent RfC would be better focused? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban proposal for editor Echigo mole

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Community_ban_proposal_for_editor_Echigo_mole

Nobody Ent 02:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fellow Wikipedians, It is time that I now propose a community ban proposal for Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Since 2011, he's been repeatedly creating sockpuppets as per here to evade his block over a 1 year period, and It appears that he's just egregiously trolling, disrupting lots of Arbcom cases, and to many, he's just another disruptive troll and nuisance on this project. Now I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: Due to the nominator of this ban.
  • Support on procedural grounds. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but Echigo has been indeffed. As I understand it, an indefinite block is more "effective" than a ban. See WP:BP.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • You are, but that's ok :) Banning doesn't change the fact that he is indef blocked as well. Banning means the person is no longer part of the community (indef blocked people still are). See WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Unofficially, banning offers more teeth in reverting and dealing with the user. A single admin can't undo a ban, only a block. And there is the statement part of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to let you know, this is the seventh time I am reporting an editor on ANI to get them banned. Khvalamde :   Argue, Scream, Chat, Yell or Shout   01:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is nuts, these constant ban votes for editors that have been indef blocked forever are 100% pointless. And no, it isn't that I don't understand the difference, it is that banning Echo-whoever, and all the other trolls and puppeteers and vandals, isn't going to change one single thing for anyone. No admin was ever going to unblock him unilaterally. No one was ever going to get nailed for reverting him because he wasn't banned. No one considered him part of the community. We're not making any "statement" whatsoever. The only conceivable benefit is the warm glow in the belly from a good 2 minute hate, and we shouldn't be encouraging that. Khvalamde, I will pay you $5, a barnstar, and one free pass to say a rude word to someone here without getting blocked (or, if you are blocked by someone else, I'll unblock you immediately) if you just promise to never bring another ban discussion to this board. Please, I am begging. Stop this ridiculousness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, thank you Buick Century Driver, that's an obvious one I forgot to list. There is no chance that the ban is going to convince them to go away. If anything, it might make them want to stick around to prove the ban is toothless. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a somewhat odd statement to make, offering to reward a user with a barnstar to stop making frivolous proposals. While I sympathize with your suffering I question the reasoning of giving community rewards to stop a user from making frivolous proposals. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Personally I have nothing to gain from this. I surmise that Khvalamde was personally involded and this could be a last resort, but I could care less if Echigo mole comes back and makes good edits. Of course if the activity is vandalisim the best way to stop them is to protect the page they're targeting. Once they know they can't edit the page, they'll probably give up on what they were doing. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
        • To make sure I'm being clear, I'm not saying that we shouldn't ban them because they might become rehabilitated. Semi-protection isn't going to work on serial sockpuppeteers, it would be useless. But so is community banning them. We shouldn't have these votes all the time because they make no difference except to waste time and give a false sense of security. Echo-whatsis (along with the other VFB's here recently) is already defacto banned; there is no benefit to making it a formal ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Though I'm not one to participate in these discussions, I seriously doubt this is going to keep this person away from the site. If efforts were made to steer this person away from his or her disruptive behaviour and they ignored, then there is nothing I can do to avert this person's fate. If not, then I strongly suggest we mitigate the block for 1 year and suggest he or she can return in the future. I also strongly belive that bans should be handled by the arbcom. They're experts in policy and usually wind up giving a fair sanction. Often these bans lead to nothing more than an endless game of cat and mouse with the user and the time it takes to keep them off could have been used to improve articles. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I see absolutley no harm in converting a de facto ban into a concrete one. If there's even a scintilla of a possible benefit in doing so, then it's a good thing. These are people for whom the collective good faith has totally run out, and I see value in the community affirming that -- or, if the proposed ban fails, in the community's realization that there is still some perceived value in keeping the possibility of the editor returning alive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • BMK, what scintilla of a possible benefit would that be? What possible benefit is there? I think it's far more likely that being banned gives them more incentive to mess with us. If anything, there is a scintilla of possible harm. The only benefit this thread will bring is the small joy I get from typing the fun not-used-often-enough word "scintilla" multiple times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Floquenbeam: One benefit is that the edits of banned editors can be removed on sight, which is not true of the edits of block-evading indef-blocked users. As for incentive, given his record, Echigo mole already has sufficient incentive to mess with us, ignoring him isn't going to change that, nor is banning him. -- I think Mathsci can confirm that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Also, banning isn't a death sentence, things can change, community bans can be removed by the community, should there be a change of heart and a sincere demonstration of having turned over a new leaf. There's no particular reason to avoid an appropriate ban simply because it's a more restrive sanction than an indef block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
An indef blocked editor can't make edits, so what good does the revert on sight protocol do?Nobody Ent 09:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Easier to enforce - editors do not need to spend quite as much time dealing with the disruption caused. As a one-off thing, it's no significant difference, but when it happens often, it can be worthwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Floquenbeam has a good point. Why have a ban or block when said user can very easily step around that? See User:Grundle2600, User:CentristFiasco, and User:Ryan kirkpatrick for good examples of that. --MuZemike 07:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF -- user is already banned (defacto) and Floequenbeam's point is spot on. Nobody Ent 10:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not the ban, but the process of seeking a formal confirmation for it just for form's sake. We have a perfectly adequate policy on this: per WP:BAN, users who get themselves indef-blocked and then continue with a persistent pattern of block-evading sock disruption, already are considered de facto banned. The recent fashion of bringing up all these cases for formal reconfirmation of the ban has the effect of watering down this good old rule and spreading the myth that the old principle of "a banned user is any user who no admin would ever want to unblock" somehow is no longer valid. There is no difference between a formally enacted ban and a de facto ban of this sort, except that theoretically the threshold for an admin to try to override it and unblock a user would be lower for the latter type. But in most cases this possibility is remote and any unblock would quickly be overturned with a massive troutslap, so it doesn't really matter. For this reason I basically agree with Floquenbeam. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think the opposes are less than convincing as to the merits of whether or not Echigo is considered banned. I am a little more than appalled at the logic that we shouldn't ban or block an user just because they can find a way around it; why bother having useful edits made to the encyclopedia if all the work are inevitably going to be damaged by vandals, tendentious editors, and other users who should not be editing Wikipedia? While I appreciate the frustration regarding why should we necessarily confirm a ban from so long ago just because of some recent socking, that does not really warrant an oppose to this ban because it does nothing more than confuse/complicate matters - an oppose would mean there is some willingness to unblock the user (so a ban is not warranted), while your rationales apparently contradict that as there is no clear support from you regarding the ban itself. If you are getting annoyed with an user unnecessarily bringing up ban discussions on an ongoing basis regarding indef blocked users where official bans are not necessary (in light of the defacto bans), comment on their talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Support - when too much editor time is unnecessarily being wasted on cleaning up, I am not going to oppose efforts to cut down on that - purely because some admins fail to appreciate the difference this will have on other editors who do not have the luxury of extra buttons. I also don't agree that this is the appropriate discussion for "watering down our normal practices", so I am changing my comment to clarify my support for the ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I tend to think "what's it going to hurt to have a formal confirmation", but FPaS' point about this watering down our normal practices is convincing — this ban won't have a practical benefit and is part of a pattern that's not going in a good direction. Community ban proposals should be for people who aren't already (1) blocked indefinitely, and (2) obviously blocked permanently. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ban due to abusive sockpuppetry. And as sick as some people are of seeing ban discussions I'm equally as sick of seeing them endlessly bitching about it. It's been discussed a million times. A community ban requires the consensus of the community to reverse, not just promises to be good to a single administrator. And the entire "de facto" bollocks is an utter debacle as I knew it would be. Every time there is a ban proposal there is this endless bullshit about "de facto this" and "indef is fine, nothing changes with a ban" that. Clearly it is different or there would be no such thing as a "ban", admins would just block people and leave it at that. The fact that ban proposals repeatedly come up indicates that you're not going to get your way and ban proposals will not stop unless you either eliminate the concept of a community ban or you change the way Wikipedia works, namely via discussion and consensus. If you don't want to participate in ban discussions nobody is holding your feet to the fire. But quit derailing every ban discussion with this endless bitching and griping, it is FAR MORE DISRUPTIVE than any ban discussion has ever been. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per Floquenbeam. Thanks, Dennis, for the explanation and pointer. Could we make it any more complicated?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose What this section fails to address is why the ban was so merited in the first place to result in further measures. To me this seems a case of Double Jeopardy in wanting to provide additional punishments after the fact. And if that is to occur, then in my opinion there should be at least a token analysis of the original discipline so we can assure ourselves that (a) it was warranted, and (b) all possible measures need to be instituted to stop the user. A glance at the diffs provided shows little more than an affinity for Grunsky Matrices (whatever those are). For me to assume more discipline is required I would need to feel assured the original discipline itself was warranted, let alone that more is necessary. To my mind that proof has yet to be presented and without it this would be a hasty, premature, and careless rush to judgment which I will not support. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Break

  • Strong support for community ban of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole Echigo mole started out life as A.K.Nole. He has wikihounded me since 2009 first as A.K.Nole and then using the account Quotient group. (On Wikipedia Review, he had the account Greg, if I remember rightly.) At that stage he was unwilling to admit to being an alternative account, but Shell Kinney interceded in 2010, corresponding with him by email, and he admitted to being an alternative account of A.K.Nole and agreed to stop wikihounding me. That promise did not last. He subsequently edited as:

He trolled on arbcom pages using ipsocks in the range 212.183.1.1/16. The edits he made relating to me are catalogued here:

That editing was clarified by the arbitration committee in January 2011, when it was unclear whether these edits were by A.K.Nole or Mikemikev. Elen of the Roads informed me that they were by A.K.Nole and the ip range was blocked for 3 months by Shell Kinney along with the above named sockpuppets. The other sockpuppet accounts can be found on the investigation page and include the following accounts:

Since December 2011 they switched from vodaphone to the ip ranges 94.196.1.1/16 and 94.197.1.1/16. The diffs of all the edits related to me were described during the current arbcom review. That information was gathered up to 13 April, but there have been about 30 edits since then and several ipsocks blocked by either arbitrators or administrators.

This person follows my edits and pretends to have expert mathematical knowledge (they are barely at a second year undergraduate level in mathematics, probably only have done a course in computer science, and are generally clueless about any mathematics that is graduate level or beyond). They troll on arb com pages, arbcom clerk talk pages and arbitrator talk pages. Instead of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point, MuZemike could have attended to the outstanding checkuser case (Krod Mandoon) which Courcelles dealt with by indefinitely blocking the account and removing his trolling edits on the Requests for amendment page. This user has worked out my real life identity and has attempted to out me in various places. Amalthea has suggested that a Long Term Abuse file be prepared for this editor. It would not look very different from the above, but I would be cautious in describing the way in which this wikihounder goes about outing me. I have to be continually vigilant. Having said I would support a community ban, the LTA is more helpful. I do know of one community banned editor who is editing through another account. At the moment it is not worth reporting, since his editing patterns are not disruptive (he has started university in a new location and that I would guess is more suited to his personality). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has now started to troll here (what a surprise).[66][67] But all his edits repeat themselves ad nauseam, each one claiming to be from a new person. Wikipedia does not work like that. The edits are instantly recognizable because of the standard IP ranges used and their dreary repetitive content. WP:DUCK and WP:DENY apply in this case. Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. The user's record is appalling. We don't need this kind of disruption. Prioryman (talk) 09:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I looked at the diffs and user's edits[68] briefly and couldn't understand what the issue was. Perhaps you could show more clearly which edits they made originally that were so objectionable? All I saw was a potentially unhealthy interest in discussing esoteric mathematical subjects with you. To convince me the original ban itself was warranted, let alone that more discipline is required, I will need to see specifics as to how they acted rudely. I did not even see where you asked them to stop talking to you, which to me would show this was stalking as you claim. This long list of diffs needs to more concisely pinpoint where abuse occurred for me to acknowledge the original ban was even necessary, let alone a more stringent action. Clearly discipline isn't deterring them anyway so we might as well make sure the original decision was correct rather than making a careless judgment which will only encourage them further to oppose it by suggesting careless injustice. --98.220.198.49 (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC) Block-evading sockpuppet's comments struck. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Question. This [69] appears to be by DWaterson (talk · contribs), who registered in 2005. Is Mathsci quite sure that this is another sockpuppet User:Echigo mole? Could we see the SPI please? 94.197.77.227 (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC) block evading ipsock's edits struck- comment was restored by blocked ipsock 94.197.34.71 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS)Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as ineffective, and per Floquenbeam. User is already de facto banned. Formalising it as a community ban is a bureaucratic process that provides no additional security or protection and no additional deterrent to the offender. The notion that a community ban would prevent an errant admin from unblocking the user where a de facto ban wouldn't is untested in this instance and is an attempt to protect against a possible outcome that will likely never occur. If an admin unblocks this user unilaterally, then there is a case to discuss a community ban, otherwise this process is needless red-tape time-wasting. I would also suggest Khvalamde refrain from filing these types of requests in future until such time as the distinction between a community and de facto ban becomes necessary (not simply desirable). – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits›     01:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read what I wrote a little more carefully. Checkusers such as Amalthea have already suggested that an entry be prepared for Echigo mole at WP:LTA, as I have written. Mathsci (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter Mathsci, the current mob trend here is that ban discussions are annoying, so they're voting oppose to prove a WP:POINT. The truly idiotic thing is that the so called "de facto" ban is now void. Since admins here have now voted in opposition to a ban, it can be argued that an admin may potentially be willing to unblock this serial socker/vandal, and a "de facto" ban is only in effect as long as no admins are willing to unblock. Stupid, stupid people. Instead of some community ban discussions you instead have an administrative mess and endless kb of debate. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I would assume that, given the above record, any administrator who unblocked any of the indefinitely blocked accounts would risk being desysopped. Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment of de-facto-banned users

Moved to Wikipedia talk:List of banned users#Treatment of de-facto-banned users: The administrators noticeboard is archived very often and this is a better place for the discussion. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Block review requested for Historiographer

Historiographer (talk · contribs)

WP:ANI#Personal attack by User: Historiographer

The user has been blocked after a complaint at ANI, I ask for clarification regarding consideration of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which has not been referred to by the original complainant or the blocking admin. It appears to have been overlooked, despite it's significance, which changes entirely what appeared as a npa into very wise advice. Penyulap ☏ 16:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it is you're doing, you're not helping the user; posting unblock-requests on someone else's talkpage knowing full well they will be declined isn't good. Historiographer now has two declined unblock-request on his page, neither of which were even made by him/her. I suggest someone remove these so it won't give the wrong impression when giving just a quick glance. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like someone with limited English skills (thought their English is far better than my Korean or Japanese) attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice. If I'm reading correctly, the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a lot more to this than one comment - heck, just look at his remarks after being mentioned on ANI. Too bad at English to contribute to discussion imo, so even if block removed he should only be doing edits that don't require discussion (whatever they may be). Egg Centric 17:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Actually, the block is for more than just some NPA-slip; this user has a history of edit-warring, attacks and other stuff. So it's not like it's made to look; there's more. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The last edit war block was over a year ago. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
hm. I didn't know you had the right to edit-war once a year. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The point is that it is not relevant to the current case, which appears to not be a case at all and just a mistake on the blocking admin's part. SilverserenC 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I was going to make the same point, but Silver Seren beat me to it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not a mistake. Why is this split across the two noticeboards? I commented on the thread at WP:ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why it's split between two discussions, you might want to merge them. However, i've read your statement over there and I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. The next logical step, if a block was warranted, would be to go to 1 week, after the last block a year ago of 72 hours. But a block is not warranted here, a warning is. SilverserenC 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this is split across two notice boards because a request for a block is viewed as an incident requiring quick action, and belonging on the incident page, while a review of a block is less urgent and belongs on the AN page. That said, the page instruction leave a lot to be desired. I've figured out what goes where mostly by osmosis.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving my earlier response here from WP:ANI:

@Penyulap: I am at a loss to understand why you would think the "Please, Don't mind too" part of Historiographer's edit [82] is relevant to the block reasons. That bit is of course harmless. What's not harmless is the fact that he was calling Japanese users Jjokbaries (a racist slur) and was describing them wholesale as disruptive social misfits who enjoyed damaging Wikipedia articles. If that was not the expression of a deeply entrenched battleground attitude, I don't know what is. Moreover, the block was also based on a review of his previous pattern of contributions (although these are mostly some months back; he's been inactive of late except for today's talk page post). Historiographer obviously knows too little English to interact with other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex POV disputes, and that means that his editing has been mostly restricted to blanket reverts of other users accompanied with edit summaries in broken, almost incomprehensible English. Such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is disruptive especially when it happens in a highly charged, contentious topic area such as this. WP:COMPETENCE is required.
This is not to say that other users in the field may not also be deserving of similar blocks, or even more so. Historiographer's outburst against Japanese editors who "feels ecstasy when they bothering Koreans", while unacceptable in the way he expressed it, may partly be a sign of an understandable frustration, because, frankly, we have had a couple of Japanese users in the past to whom this description more or less applied. I don't know how many of them are currently on the loose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

And more responses to the comments above:

  • @SPhilbrick and others: I also cannot follow you at all in describing this posting as "attempting to show empathy, by recounting some unfair postings that the individual has learned to ignore, and is giving similar advice". I'll give you my own translation of the original post into proper English, staying as close as possible to what Historiographer apparently meant to say:
    Japanese users such as Kusunose, who restrict themselves to Korea-related articles, have always been annoying like this. I used to confront these troublesome jjokbaris [i.e. Japanese bastards] just like you are doing now. However, there is no definite solution to this problem, because anti-Korean Japanese users are otaku [i.e. obsessed] hikikomori [i.e. loners] and get their greatest joy out of annoying Koreans. Please ignore them. Truth will prevail on Wikipedia regardless of Japanese lies.
    There is no reasonable way of reading this posting according to which Historiographer isn't:
    1. calling Japanese editors "bastards/scum" ("jjokbari") – this is not within the scope of what he "used to do" but "is no longer doing"; he is clearly saying now that these people actually are scum;
    2. describing Japanese editors as socially impaired (roughly: "obsessed basement-dwelling nerds");
    3. attributing to Japanese editors a fundamental desire to harm Wikipedia;
    4. describing the disputes between Korean and Japanese editors as a matter of "truth" versus "lies" ("hoaxes");
    5. reenforcing the other editor's (a newbie's) description of Japanese editors as "vandals" (rather than trying to dissuade him of that mistake, as any reasonable experienced editor should).
  • @Silverseren: I don't take kindly to baseless insinuations of "involved" admin misuse; please retract that because I regard it as an insult. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I read it differently.
I read it, using a very generous translation, as saying" "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off."
Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary. Worth a trip to WQA? Probably. Worth a three month block? Not IMO.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are misreading it. This is definitely not what he was saying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the block was much stronger than necessary. There were some racist personal attacks there, but I think anything more than a week is completely unreasonable and I'm not entirely sure a block was absolutely necessary prior to a full ANI discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
After seeing this edit I am fully supportive of the block. I still think 3 months becomes punitive rather than preventative. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, but you were the one who blocked him twice before. Don't you think that makes you biased in terms of this user, especially when others are pointing out that it seems too much? SilverserenC 19:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Not too involved, 3rr blocks are fairly cut and dry and don't generally equate to "involvement" Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
(ec) No, it doesn't. Since when does being acquainted with a user's disruptive pattern from an administrator's perspective make an administrator automatically biased? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
When a future block of the user seems overdone. A week would have been defensible, not three months. SilverserenC 19:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
My only possibly bias in this area is that I am of the opinion we should treat all disruptive editors in the Korea-Japan hotspot areas, on both sides, with extra harshness. Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I thoroughly agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise's interpretation of the above screed, and my only complaint is that this block isn't indef. But I suppose this is a good compromise; if you really, seriously cannot see the problem with referring to Japanese people as jjokbaris (which is sort of like calling them Japs or slant-eyes in English), I can't help you (despite my signature, I can assure you that I'm white and don't have any personal reason to be offended). I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, it is policy itself that the English server is shared amongst all editors with different variants of English. They do not ask any special treatment that you take sufficient care to understand their variant of the english language, it is policy that you must. You describe the editors summaries as "broken, almost incomprehensible English." they may be so to you, however, do you not see that there are people who do have a clear understanding of the editors remarks ? How does this fit in with your mention of WP:COMPETENCE in your ability to cope with judging the editors remarks ? Penyulap ☏ 20:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken English is not a "variant" of English. It's just broken. Yes, one can generally figure out what he means, with some effort. That doesn't change the fact that the presence of English at this poor level is disruptive to the smooth working of the project. As, incidentally, can be seen from the fact that in this particular instance some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
i are agree to sun, the wonderful at dawn. the english which smashed not understanding the english themselves, who are confused. Egg Centric

(edit conflict)

The Blade of the Northern Lights, I do agree with you about the harshness required for dealing with racial trolling, however there are two separate issues here and as best I can see Future Perfect at Sunrise is unaware of the clear interpretation of the phrase "Please, Don't mind too." which was overlooked and left out of the original complaint. It reverses the statement. It is significant.
Once that mistake is recognised and dealt with, yes of course you deal with the secondary issue of mentioning such things in conversation masked as good advice as inflammatory in itself, and determine if that was the intention. Overt attack is the reasoning behind the block, and an overt attack it is not. Penyulap ☏ 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? How does "Please, Don't mind too" "reverse the statement"? It does not. The phrase meant "please ignore what those Japanese editors are doing". What on earth did you think it meant? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I feel I understood it, and that was that. It was wise advice from one editor to another, it DID NOT name any other editor, was sympathetic and intended to ease tensions rather than inflame them. If we are going to sit and search for a fault with any editor there are more likely candidates than this one. The finer interpretation of hidden dynamics, I feel should not be handled by an admin who describes that editors variant as incomprehensible.
SPhilbrick seems to have translated into a more familiar to you ? variant. So if you want to know what "reverse the statement" means, leave the italicised words out of his translation. "I can sympathize with your feelings. There are some (not all) editors who have been very annoying. So annoying I viewed them as bastards, but I now realize they are simply obsessed, and are just acting like trolls to annoy you. Don't fall for it; ignore them, and you will be better off." although, I think the original editor said it better himself in his own language. "Please, Don't mind too." is not open to ambiguity. Penyulap ☏ 21:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
You are misreading this in such an absurd fashion I really have nothing more to say. Except for this: if this guy's English is so poor that he could be misunderstood by a competent speaker of English, like you, in such an utterly absurd way, that's all the more grounds for keeping him blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Righteous block Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

English speakers by percentage within European Union countries, everything in grey is not EU, so percentages there aren't shown. The lightest shade of green (bottom right) means less than 20% can speak English. This is just Europe and just the EU, then there is Asia, including Indian, before you reach across to Japan and Korea and the rest of east Asia
Certainly if I were the only person who 'misunderstood' the editors comments I may doubt myself and review several times more until I could see my misinterpretation, however I see that I am not alone. I find that I am endlessly quoting and linking to this policy page in articles, and once before at ANI I posted up the image I will repost here. Whilst I can understand that you find other variants of English disruptive in themselves, I don't think it proper to interpret policy in a way that places your own sub-demographic above all others.
If language is a reason to block, we need to update policy to decide which variant to use. Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Does that mean we can block all the British editors? Because British English is confusing, imo. SilverserenC 21:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Eenie, meenie, minee, MO! which way shall we GO ? I'm sure you know there are like 250 million people in America, but did you know there are 80 million Nigerians who speak English ? Maybe they can run scams on the 125,000,000 people in India who can speak English, you know using the call centres, and there are 90 million English speakers in the phillipines, sweet, so, who do we ban pre-emptively first ? Personally I think it should be the whistleblower, that would be me, I'll return as a sock and help you ban all these variant speakers shall I? Yep, I'm losing it, time for me to get something to eat I guess, or play a computergame. Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Clearly, the easiest method is to ban everyone who isn't American. SilverserenC 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm going with Blade on this one: resorting to racist slurs should result in an indef. Full stop, no exceptions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Blades similar use of slurs, he said "I don't think we'd tolerate an American editor complaining about wetbacks or a Polish editor complaining about krauts, so I don't see why we should do anything different here." I count two slurs right there, we should indef him, and omg I just repeated them, so indef me as well. And the Americans, Canadians, omg lets go SOPA for a day and block everyone to teach them all a lesson.
But seriously, which interpretation are you going on HandThatFeeds ? the overt one, the covert one, or are you aware there is a difference ? Penyulap ☏ 22:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, quit being so melodramatic. You know damn well what I'm talking about. Your hyperbole and incessant need to go over-the-top is not helping these discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Template use prohibition

Seems like other than the blocked editor posting the unblock template is confusing and disruptive... does this happen frequently enough to make discussion of a formal prohibition worthwhile? Nobody Ent 21:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

certainly it is, looking over the unblock pages and guides it says nothing whatsoever about third parties, I would gladly help with some feedback :) Penyulap ☏ 21:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The documentation for the template says "The following should be placed on your talk page:"Nobody Ent 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't think of just how funny it would have been if I did it that way, rats! Penyulap ☏ 22:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, well I placed it on my userpage, I have no idea how it looks there, if it is humorous or not, see for yourself now would someone please move this little section or start a suggestion somewhere that the docs for the template are inadequate or something ? way I see it at the moment, if you want to unblock someone, use an unblock template, if there is some other way to do it, lets not keep it a secret any longer, as for me, I'll go on using the template as is, it's good enough for me. Whatever happens, it's not relevant to this discussion, imho, sorry Nobody Ent. Penyulap ☏ 22:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Uh, Penyulap, it's phrased that way because the template is only supposed to be used by the blocked party. Therefore, it is posted on their talkpage. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That's where I put it. on their talkpage, but it goes on my talkpage doesn't it? Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
No, you don't use it at all. The blocked editor may use it if they want to be unblocked. It is not appropriate for another user to request unblocking through those templates. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Of note, this is his response: "Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested"[83]
Obviously not interested in help, and does not care about the block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad you can join us halfway through, were now going in the same direction, it's just that little bit faster now. Penyulap ☏ 22:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we're going in the same direction at all. The user was offensive and does not care that he was blocked. There's nothing further to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"Ha Ha Ha, don't be such an ass! Whatever you are saying, I'm not interested" actually means "I deeply care about my being blocked and promise I will never engage in such behavior again. Please unblock me." Remember, the user has limited knowledge of the English language. WP:AGF. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(illistration using some sarcasm, basically asking what do you expect?)Hmm I think they should be more like "Omg I am so sorry that I am upset that you have incorrectly blocked me in a biased manner, I so sorry, I not speak enwish, you aways right because wikipwedia is american, please block me some more because I not happy with your mistake" anything less should go indef. Penyulap ☏ 22:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
On a serious note, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with AGF which is not policy, this has to do with an admin with by his own admission little or no understanding of the editors variant blocking that editor based on his interpretation of that editors English. That IS against policy. (is there a policy along the lines of don't close your eyes and fire a gun randomly?) Penyulap ☏ 22:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Am I alone in thinking that Penyulap is now simply trolling? This is just getting too bizarre. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if Penyulap realizes that the user called him an ass. In light of the rest of the information that came about here, I wouldn't be opposed to indef block, no talk page access, rather than the 3 month block in existence now (Contrary to my earlier comments). Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You may call me a troll, you may call me an ass, or you may indeed call me a troll's ass for good measure, I do not mind, I prefer the third. I see the same systemic problem that I saw with AndytheGrump recently, where the accused does his best to undermine wikipedia by refocusing the discussion upon his accuser.

I would suggest that, (using your own language and phrasing so you can understand with ease)

  • You "obviously know too little English" to place blocks upon other editors in a meaningful, constructive way when dealing with complex language issues. You found an editor upon whom you placed a block as having "broken, almost incomprehensible English." and yet still resisted any advice on the matter from many other editors and admins.
  • You've said "I am at a loss to understand why you would think the Please, Don't mind too part of Historiographer's edit is relevant to the block reasons." and resist any attempt by many people to help you understand why it IS relevant.
  • You've said "some observers here obviously could not figure out what he was saying, even when they tried." and don't want to take advice from the people who can understand with some ease.
  • You've said "Having followed disputes in this domain from a distance for several years, I have come to the opinion that the whole field is so overrun with hopelessly unproductive editors that in order to restore sanity we would have to kick out about 80% of them."
  • You suggest that if an editor is capable of being misunderstood by someone else, they should be blocked

I'm fast coming to the conclusion that it is not the block which requires review, but your adminship that requires review. Penyulap ☏ 00:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Drop the stick, please. I'm no particular friend of FPaS, but you're way off base here, and doing yourself harm by continuing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this has become a complete WP:BOOMERANG. Pen, you've made it clear you like to engage in some devil's advocacy and humor, but you never seem to know when to quit. You're really pushing people's patience with this act. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a current issue with Penyulap - inserting themself into situations where they are 100% policy unaware, and thus inflame the situation - often by encouraging the other editor to speak out more loudly and improperly. A couple of months ago we had another editor who got their wrist slapped for posted unblocks "on behalf of" editors - I'm going to have to go back and find out who it was (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Bwilkins, please be kind enough to keep your personal attack 100 % to yourself. Penyulap ☏ 14:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
What personal attack? Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Glad to see I'm not the only person who finds Penyulap's behaviour peculiar. Somehow the quality of the trolling reminds me of Archtransit (talk · contribs) and socks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
At first it seemed like someone who just won't quit to me, but some statements are so unreasonable that I think trolling could be a fair diagnosis. Egg Centric 15:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It’s a shame I caught this thread so late, as I think I could have prevented some of the fallout if I had seen it earlier. As an ESL teacher I deal with these kind of language issues every day, although admittedly with Japanese speakers and not Korean speakers. It would be easier for me to interpret the comment by Historiographer that started all of this if I spoke Korean in addition to speaking Japanese; however, the two languages still share many features, such as the lack of plurals and the way they use suffixes (particles) to modify words, so I can make a reasonable guess as to what's going on.

I would be grateful if a Korean speaker could check over this, but I think the true meaning of the comment by Historiographer that started this business is somewhere between Fut. Perf.’s strict interpretation and SPhilbrick’s lenient one. Here is what I think was intended:

Japanese users like Kusunose, who diminish the quality of Korea-related articles, always keep doing annoying things like that. In earlier times I also used to do the things you have done (here referring to the actions of 222.101.9.93 (talk)) against these troublesome Jjokbaries. However, there are no definitive answers to this problem due to the fact that (some) Anti-Korean Japanese users, who some people think are otaku (obsessive nerds, probably of the computer variety) with hikikomori (loner) tendencies, feel ecstasy when they bother Koreans. Please, pay no attention to them. The contents of Wikipedia are no longer the absolute truth, regardless of what Japanese hoaxes may be perpetrated on the site. See this link. (The link appears to be a site discussing Japanese people with a decidedly anti-Japanese point of view, but the Google translation isn’t too clear.) Nowadays, I just stop responding to the Japanese otaku when I see them. (The Korean bracketed text is an idiom which I can’t translate. The direct translation is something like “don’t throw any lead” – ‘lead’ as in the metal – whatever that means.) If you do this too, it will be a great help to you. Thanks for your passion in editing those articles.

This is subjective of course, so please take my interpretation with a pinch of salt. However, if I am right, then Historiographer looks less like a holy warrior who is out to insert The Truth into Wikipedia at all costs, and more like a user tired of edit wars who is giving out good advice to fellow Koreans. However, this does not excuse the racial slur “jjokbari”, and this user obviously has an anti-Japanese point of view that will prevent them from editing neutrally on Japanese topics. Claims of a battleground mentality are fair enough, as Historiographer is plainly seeing the topic area as one of “us versus them”.

In light of this interpretation, I don’t think Penyulap was off base with this AN thread, and I wouldn’t call their subsequent posts trolling. I think that their comments about Fut. Perf. were a bit over the line, however. A claim that someone's "adminship requires review" is a serious matter, and editors who make claims like this should be prepared to back them up with serious evidence. I also think the others in the discussion who criticised Historiographer have very good points. Although we should assume a degree of good faith about Historiographer’s comment due to their low language ability, we can’t just ignore the obvious racial slur and POV, and their subsequent caustic talk page comments. We must also bear in mind that competence is required – although I don't think we can reasonably say that a low English level by itself is disruptive, there is no denying that it makes it harder to contribute usefully here. On balance, I think Historiographer deserved to be blocked, although I think 3 months might be a bit harsh in light of my interpretation of their comment above. And Penyulap, it’s probably best to leave this one alone now, and go and do something relaxing. I suggest a nice long bath and some chocolate. :-) Sorry for the tl;dr everyone. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't see that your paraphrase differs from mine in any particularly important way, so I can't really see how it would be the basis for a milder assessment of the situation. In particular, all the five points I listed in conclusion to my earlier paraphrase (further up in this thread) still apply under your reading. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Guys, please understand that Penyulap is definitely not a troll, not is his intention to be trolling. Pen and I seem to understand each other pretty well (we have some attributes in common, heh!) Pen cares deeply when he sees something (I'm having real trouble hunting for the right words here, but our Aspie and Autie editors will understand it immediately) being considered from one angle (obvious to neurotypicals) and not being seen from an alternative (or possibly many alternative) angles. For the non-Autie types, it's a bit like a good musician hearing one of those god-awful electronic doorbells which cannot play a single tune in tune; or like an unscratchable itch, or someone scraping their fingernails down a blackboard. Very often we can't "see" something the way other people can see it, but here's the other side of the coin: we "see" things, clearly, which other people miss. That works both ways. But please don't label Pen as a troll; he's very far from being one. Pesky (talk) 09:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you everyone, I apologise Future Perfect at Sunrise, I am not attempting to troll anyone. I do have an insatiable drive to be certain that editors can see just what is going on in situations where I clearly see hidden dynamics, so that the community as a whole can judge a situation for themselves 'without distortion and concealment' :). This has nothing whatsoever to do with you, this is a desire to see that everyone has the same 'level playing field'. I only 'persist' until all significant hidden dynamics have been exposed, or to put it another way, the stick is not to hurt anyone, it's just to uncover everything, once that is done, I do not care one iota for the stick or the discussion, as it is not my decision that has any meaning at all. In this case I have nothing else to add and no opinion on the matter whatsoever as there are experts aplenty. I apologise if our interaction has been painful for you, my intentions had nothing to do with you beyond examining motives of everyone concerned. Penyulap ☏ 19:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I briefly want to make a few points (I'm not a native Korean speaker but I do speak it and Korea is my field of expertise). Firstly, while there's probably a context here that I won't get on a cursory overview (though I have encountered the user's past edits while cleaning up Korea-related articles), the use of "jjokbari" should not be understood in the same light as racist remarks in English. Use of terms like jjokbari is pretty common among Koreans and is much milder than obvious racial slurs in English, and Korea itself is not a particularly "race-sensitive" society. Nationalism is hegemonic in Korea, so Koreans have a very different idea of what constitutes "NPOV". I don't mean this as some sort of relativist clarion call, I just wanted to add this since I think there's a danger of overlooking the cultural context here (I'm responding in particular to Future Perfect's remark about racial insensitivity meriting an indef block). (Stradivarius - I wouldn't get carried away with the Japanese/Korean similarities, sentence structures in Korean are actually very different to those of Japanese -- but in this case I think the meaning is pretty clear with or without grammatical interpolations.) I would be inclined to view his remarks as basically meaning "Don't let the Japanese trolls get you down". The parenthetical remark literally means "Don't throw bait" (don't trust Google Translate for Korean, their algorithms come up with some very bizarre translations for individual terms). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I like Google translate, but it hates me and calls me a Juggler, blah ! Penyulap ☏ 23:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications, Tyrannus Mundi. Your comment makes a lot of sense. I also wanted to say one more thing about Historiographer's original comment. I think that he is only referring to a subset of Japanese users - i.e. the ones he says are "otaku" with "hikikomori" tendencies - not all Japanese users. I think the intention is easy to mistake here, as the whole comment starts with "Japanese users", and the qualifier "like Kusunose" is relatively far away, after a sub-clause, plus the punctuation is confusing. Two of the three other mentions of Japanese users in the comment are qualified directly, i.e. "Anti-Korean Japanese users" and "Japanese otaku", and I don't think the third, "Japanese hoax", can be assumed to refer to all Japanese users. Not that describing a subset of Japanese users rather than all Japanese users excuses the comment per se, but it does contrast with Fut. Perf.'s five points above. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, a "Japanese [derogatory]" noun phrase is offensive enough to support some action, especially in a situation without the user providing his/her own mea culpa. It objectively expresses bias/antipathy based on nationality/ethnicity in the common language of the project, whatever the subjective intent maybe. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects with non-breaking spaces (or strange accents?)

At Redirects for creation, redirects from the pinyin spellings Bù​liǎo​ qíng and Bù​ liǎo​ qíng to Bu liao qing were requested. The request seemed reasonable to me, but I cannot create them because the titles supposedly contain "a non-breaking space or other unusual space character" (presumably it's the accented "a" that's the problem; for all I can tell the space is just an ordinary space). The error message said I should raise the issue at this noticeboard. Could an admin create the redirects? Huon (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

YesY Done -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, both of those do contain disallowed characters and should not be created. I can create redirects without the invalid characters for you. 28bytes (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I've moved these redirects to Bùliǎo qíng and Bù liǎo qíng, respectively. These look identical to the ones requested, but do not contain the hidden embedded characters that no one is likely to type. For future reference, if you see %E2%80%8B anyplace in the address bar, that's the blacklisted character; remove that and you should be able to create the redirect without admin assistance. 28bytes (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that and fixing it. I thought it was simply the diacritics that were causing the problem, and didn't notice the hidden characters.  :/ -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I wouldn't have noticed myself if I hadn't stumbled across this list a while back. 28bytes (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Rule of thumb: if the blacklist tells you exactly what's wrong ("an non-breaking space or other unusual space character"), it's usually right. If it's vague or says nothing, it's usually a false positive. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I was unaware we had such a list, and now don't understand why we do. Glancing at it, it is not obvious to me why those characters would be banned. If it's a valid way of spelling something, shouldn't people be able to search for it. Maybe someone comes across the unusual character (in a word or name) in text somewhere, and does a copy-and-paste to our search bar to learn more. Someone please explain to me why they shouldn't get a valid result. LadyofShalott 08:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There is already a redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%8B. The problem would not be for redirects so much as article forks, that look like the real named article but have a different point of view from the original. You could imagine any number of controversial topics where someone would like their own version of a topic up here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The "unusual spaces" are banned because they are visually indistinguishable from an ordinary space character, but lead to different article titles (note that there are two redlinks in the original post, and two visually-identical bluelinks in 28bytes' reply). The blacklist entries are there to prevent confusion. --Carnildo (talk) 00:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
To expand on what Carnildo said, the problem with allowing these hidden embedded characters is that maintenance becomes a nightmare. Instead of just an Alexander Hamilton article, we could then have an Alex​ander Hamilton article, an Alexander Hamil​ton article, and a practically infinite number of other visually identical articles. The current situation, with the blacklist in place, is that if someone copies Alexander Hamil​ton from a Word document and pastes it in the search bar, they'll get a "Did you mean Alexander Hamilton?" prompt. If we take these characters off the blacklist, they'll get a chance to create Alexander Hamil​ton, which they just might do, since any decent encyclopedia should have an article on the guy. People inadvertently did this a fair amount before the blacklist was in place; I think it's good they no longer can. 28bytes (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the responses. Much of my original question still remains though: if someone happens upon the name somewhere and does a copy-and-paste of it to our search bar, we are preventing them from getting a valid response. None of you have addressed why that is acceptable. The content fork problem could be dealt with using protected redirects. LadyofShalott 22:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I concede. LadyofShalott 22:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research

Hey all

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This surprises me — I thought requiring open access was already a requirement for federally-funded research. Nyttend (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
If only :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User ban

Resolved: The user being complained about was blocked as a sockmaster a week ago, SPI filed here as it's pretty obvious the complainant is linked

The activities of User "Earth Exploding Live" first came to my attention when they trolled and defaced my blog on blogspot. They insulted me and gave out my personal information. Naturally, I reported them immediately to Google and they banned/deleted the accounts. They then pointed to this page, and said that they were someone called "Earth Exploding Live" and that I should propose a ban for them, which seems reasonable given what they did to ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavinKline132 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Two things. 1) Users don't get blocked or banned for activities occurring solely off-wiki. Sucks that whoever this is has been fucking with you, but Wikipedia won't ban someone based on your say-so about something that happened on another site. 2) The user (Earth Exploding Live (talk · contribs)) was blocked a week ago anyway. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
And a third thing: seems pretty obvious to me that you are EEL, as they would already know they have been permanently blocked from editing here. Stop wasting our time. → ROUX ₪ 20:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, why is it obvious this user is EEL? Deleted contribs? CU? Something else? Egg Centric 20:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
EEL was blocked a week ago. The complainant showed up today to request a ban. Do you really think that either 1) JavinKline waited a week to come here, or 2) that EEL didn't know they were blocked? → ROUX ₪ 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
WRT Q1: I've absolutely no idea. I could see someone who ran a part time blog waiting a week, sure. Bear in mind I have no idea about the back story of this (except what I'm about to say), so if you know something about the blogs they've been targetting that makes this point ridiculous, apologies. Moving onto Q2 - completely agree, I'm 100% sure that I know that EEL knew they were blocked cause I remember seeing them on AN or ANI and telling em that there was no point in what they were doing cause they would be WP:DENYd. Egg Centric 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Nevertheless the IP action afterwards makes it extremely likely you are correct. So what can I say? Sorry if you thought I was doubting you - I was just questioning you, and I still think t'was the right thing to do cause I still don't see how you could tell... Egg Centric 23:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I could tell because I have this thing called a brain. I use it to think. Approximately three femtoseconds of deduction brought me to that conclusion. → ROUX ₪ 21:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
…and rather than take the high road, you respond condescendingly. Classy. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests needs some love, it is currently heavily backlogged with about 70 requests, many more the a week old. While responding to semi-protected edit requests is not limited to administrators, I'm mentioning it here as responding to requests is an activity that watchers of this page are likely to be able to help out with. It is important we try to reduce the backlog, as requested semi-protected edits significantly reduce the negative impact of semi-protection on IP editors (and new accounts), and failing to respond in a timely manner undermines that. Monty845 04:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Highly recommended. You get to see quality discussion like "Just admit that my star of David is bigger than yours." Jenks24 (talk) 04:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] request

In this article most og it source is out of reach or is not available that the article information can not check to it source and can not use and refer in other wiki, please check article and correct information. Thanks. --H.b.sh (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to understand what your concern is, but this doesn't appear to require intervention from admins. You may wish to ask for assistance at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Unusual page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Redirected and protected. MastCell Talk 20:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, i just came across this unusual page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard. Looking at the page history, it isn't being monitored for anything like vandalism and only 4 user talk pages link there which are User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive10, User talk:Cecropia/Archive 10, User:ReDM0oN/cool3 and User talk:70.234.132.146. I don't think that this page actually needs to be kept for any meaningful purpose as the page just has the history of linking the redirect itself and contains inappropriate content in it . The page should rather be deleted without any issues as it contains personal attacks in it. Thanks. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Um - what page are you actually trying to report here? GiantSnowman 11:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
After i posted the query, the page had been redirected by User:Doc9871 to this page. Please check the page edit history and you all will know everything that i said above. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Doc hasn't edited the page since your original post. GiantSnowman 11:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard (note the different placement of the apostrophe), a redirect to this page, was in a vandalized state but has now been fixed. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying - I have protected that page to prevent further abuse. GiantSnowman 11:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Ridiculous. It gets hacked every three years so we FPP??? Nobody Ent 11:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
It's just a redirect, and not one that's likely to invite any legitimate edit. Plus it has absolutely no watchers aside from Giant and Doc as a result of today's events. Full doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and trust me when I say I'm usually the one who has a problem with those). Equazcion (talk) 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Basically what Equazcion said - it's a page that should never be edited anyway due to its redirect nature, and it's one that, given where it redirects to, could be a viable target for abuse, that wouldn't be caught. GiantSnowman 12:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
But isn't deleting the page a better option as this is an unnecessary redirect ? TheGeneralUser (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Upon further review -- based on how long the hack was undetetected: Never mind Nobody Ent 12:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I removed the vandalism that was on the redirect page after seeing this thread. It probably could have been done by the thread opener - be bold! It's a redirect, in case someone misspells "Administrator" as "Administator" (leaving out one "r"), as I see it. Doc talk 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes see! I was talking about this page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard and not Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Doc9871 had redirected that page to this one 2 minutes after this post so that's why GiantSnowman you had got redirected to this page Wikipedia:Administator's noticeboard and were checking it's history :). Now Edgar181 has solved the problem. But i am still not sure that whether the page should be redirected here or deleted ? And there is another revision that needs to be deleted, this one which is still left out [84] as it is inappropriate just like that later one. And Doc9871 i would have easily done it but the page was just not right and i had to report it here :). Thank you all for the quick response and solving the problem! TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I missed that as well - but, then again, I can't remember the last time I spelled "Administrators' noticeboard" as anything other than WP:AN. Good catch. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] "The wrong version" w/ BLP-violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Immediate issue resolved. Anyone interested in the details/merits can continue this on the list's talkpage. Ahéheeʼ Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

List of Native American women of the United States currently makes a claim about a living person that is unsubstantiated. Please correct this. WP:BLP overrides "the wrong version". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute. Looking over the talk page, it appears this dispute is over Elizabeth Warren. Apparently, she self-identifies as a Native American[85] but others dispute this. I take no opinion on whether she should be on the list, but this request seems more like an attempt to win a content dispute then an actual effort to protect a living person. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Given that most of the entries have no sources I can only guess they were looking at this one. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
In her past, Elizabeth Warren listed herself as having Cherokee heritage, from one of her ancestors. This past action, laughable as it appears today given her lily-white complexion, is being used by a small but vocal band of editors who want to rub her nose in her past mistakes. The inclusion in the list is politically motivated; an effort to hurt Warren. That is what the BLP issue is. Binksternet (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
What does her skin colour have to do with it? I know a little girl with skin almost as pale as mine and blonde hair but she is an Inuk. All my kids and grandchildren look kabloonak but are all Inuit. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've edited through protection to remove Warren. That article is not a platform to push a political campaign talking point about a living person, and editors using it as such should be gently re-educated that this site is not a venue for trying to score political points (or perhaps sanctioned, if they have a history of doing so). I have no opinion on whether the "Native American" issue is notable and relevant enough for mention in Elizabeth Warren's biography, but it is clearly inappropriate to edit-war over a list article to try to maximize the visibility of what is clearly an election-season attack line. MastCell Talk 20:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] "Vandalism"?

[edit] XfD Topic Ban for User:TenPoundHammer

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#XfD_Topic_Ban_for_User:TenPoundHammer: Nobody Ent 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Community opposition to the ban exceeds support (more than double) and is unlikely to change in relation to this incident, all significant aspects of the incident have been presented for examination, further discussion may prejudice future incidents of this nature (cry wolf). non admin close. Penyulap ☏ 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

User:TenPoundHammer has recently been admonished by an RFC/U for his conduct in AfD's. Today he posted a notification on Sandstein's talk page noting that Sandstein had closed two recent AfD's (both were deleted, as was obvious from the redlinks) seeking the closure of three additional related AfD's. This poses a couple of problems:

Overall, it is unfortunately clear to me that TenPoundHammer has not taken the RFC/U's advice under advisement: he clearly appears more interested in winning than conducting the deletion process with integrity.
Note specificially that I am neither contesting the contents or closure of any of the deletion discussions, in which I have not participated, nor accusing Sandstein of any impropriety whatsoever. This is about TenPoundHammer, not Sandstein's closes or conduct.
Thus, I'm proposing that User:TenPoundHammer is topic banned from all XfD processes, broadly construed, for six months in order to preserve the integrity of the process in the face of such abuses. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • We generally don't just propose topic bans at ANI before discussing it first, as there may be other considerations or remedies available should the consensus decide that there is a problem. As that consensus hasn't developed, I find this a bit premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC) As Nobody Ent has moved this to AN, this point is moot. Striking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've notified Sanstein about this ANI. Since he is central to the discussion, I believe this is proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, I think the RFC/U, which was open quite long and quite recently, was enough discussion that I felt comfortable jumping to a concrete proposal for discussion. Others may differ, but at least it's a clear starting point: I'm not asking for a block or a "please don't do that again"; I believe a topic ban is the best way forward. While I disagree that Sandstein is "central" to this discussion, I agree that you're right to notify him that he's been mentioned, and apologize for neglecting to do that myself. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Reluctant support. TPH has, for years, been... unwilling to listen when it comes to XfDs, to slow down, to stop shrieking his head off demanding closures as soon as the clock ticks, etc etc. While his core intentions are probably good, his execution is poor (to say the least), and thus banning him from XfD for a while would probably be good for him, and save other people a lot of recurring headaches. → ROUX ₪ 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with at least the Dominic Deegan and 1/0 AFDs. Both were closed as "no consensus" several years ago. I renominated the others because I felt their past AFDs did not address the issues of reliable sources — everyone was all "keep because it won an award", but far more AFDs have proven that said award is not notable. If you're hinging your keep entirely on a flimsy reasoning, does the AFD not require a second look? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfuckingbelievable Support. Didn't you get it last week? What a senseless waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Profanity doesn't help your case. Your comment seems rather tendentious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does. It takes a heck of a lot to get me so pissed off that I need to curse, and everybody knows that. I do not believe you're blowing your nose on the community after both the RFC and last week's AN/ANI report. An absolute insult to anyone who supported you last time, and any previous times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Again. How is "renominate because the last AFD from SEVERAL YEARS AGO had flawed reasoning and/or was closed as no consensus" detrimental? I see nothing wrong with renominating because the AFD had nothing but WP:ITSNOTABLE or "It won an award that 47 other AFDs have proven is not enough to meet WP:WEB". If it were renominations like, 2 days later, I'd understand, but these are two YEARS later. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If I had my pee-pee slapped twice in the last month regarding AFD nominations, I'd be wise enough to have stayed away from AFD nominations voluntarily. The first was a warning to cut it out, the second should have been your introduction to voluntary recusal, this one should have been un-necessary (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything in the RFC/U about TPH admin shopping, and I don't see JClemens discussing the issue on TPH talk page before opening an ANI.Nobody Ent 10:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would I be banned from all XFDs? What have I done wrong in CFD, TFD, MFD? Hell, how is "renominating after the last AFD was closed due to faulty reasoning or no consensus" a bad thing? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Hammer, I think this is part of the problem, that you don't see what many have seen, and many more of us have overlooked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • A renomination of something from several years ago — I'm not seeing how that is wrong. Just tell me how THAT is wrong. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • A single renomination of something discussed several years ago is not a problem. A pattern of multiple renominations from things YOU nominated years ago is BATTLEGROUND behavior--it gives the impression you never let anything go, and will continue to bring up such things until they get deleted. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If there were thousands of examples, or evidence of a clear and constant pattern (for example if TPH re-nominated everything he'd ever nominated again every three months), then I'd agree with you. But the leap from 3 re-nominations, 2 of which were no-consensus the first time and all of which are years old, to "you never let anything go" is ridiculous and veering rather closely into a personal attack. You aren't at all coming off well in this discussion, Jclemens. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; I have to say, looking at the issues and Bwilkins comment above, I must support. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 21:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support and it breaks my heart to have to do it. I really like you Hammer, and I've defended you more than once. I believe you when you say that you don't get it, as your actions seem perfectly fine to you but not to everyone else. Even when taking up for you, I have to wince a little, but I can't this time. You are too aggressive with deletions, period. You need to take the time, reevaluate your methods and develop some new ones here. You come across like a pit bull in regards to deletions, and I would rather see them put you on a leash than put you down, old friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Will you just answer the question I've asked 14 times in this discussion?! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You push the limits in every way Hammer. You shouldn't have went to Sandstein's page, you seem obsessed with deleting, and it is disruptive and bad for Wikipedia. You need a break, for your own good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, one canvassing is all I need to be burnt at the stake huh? In my book it's not canvassing unless you say "hey, go !vote delete for me here". Which is not the same thing as "You were in this AFD, here's a related one I'd like you to look at". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I, and a substantial number of others, disagree. Sandstein deleted the stuff you wanted deleted, voted delete in another AfD, and you wanted him to close more AfDs? Do you not understand how, even if he'd been scrupulously appropriate in handling the rest of the discussions, it would have created the appearance of impropriety? Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't see evidence of wrongdoing here. Frankly, there's a LOT of articles that would have passed an AFD in 2008 (or 2007, or 2009, etc.) that wouldn't pass now due to our increased and ever-increasing focus on verifiable information from reliable sources. WP:CCC and all that. Besides, if TPH is punished for renominating an article for AFD after several years, which isn't against any rule that I know of, what about users who keep going back to DRV with the same articles month after month? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • THANK YOU. I said that five times already and no one will listen. WHAT IS WRONG with renominating after a several year gap? Several YEARS, folks, not days. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment Neither oppose nor support, because I'm not sufficiently familiar with the situation. I'm disturbed by the proposer's objection to renomination of old AFDs — when it's been years since an AFD (especially when it ended with a no-consensus close), it's not disruptive to renominate it. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose With great respect for everyone involved as I don't see the message TPH left on S's talk page to be a technical violation of WP:CANVASS, as it is neither Mass posting NOR Biased NOR Partisan NOR Secret. I accept that there is a perception of an issue related to the recent RFC/U, and I can offer no comment in that regard. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
The nominator makes the point that the message could be described as Partisan. I still oppose, as the issue of renominating old AfDs does not seem to be contrary to policy. JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I am honestly at a loss why this campaign against Mr. Hammer is being conducted. There was an RFC on his conduct at AfD, which resulted in no consensus and no action — with those bringing the case having failed miserably to prove disruption, trolling, or a failure to abide by policy. Just as soon as that closed, his opponents had him back at ANI with a similar whine-a-thon — and that ended up scrolling off the page without an administrator even taking the time to close the pointless, directionless rehash of a discussion. But it's not the lack of merit behind their failed efforts to burn Mr. Hammer that matters to his foes, I suppose, it's just keeping that User Name "in the news" so that they can move for the kill. NOW the other shoe drops — having failed not once but twice to prove disruption, they move for a massive six month topic ban based on................ nothing! This is asinine! I have a very different perspective towards where the keep/delete lines should be drawn than Mr. Hammer does, but he is NOT disruptive of the process and he SHOULD have a right to attempt to advance his perspective without being bullied by those who disagree with him. THERE IS NO WRONGDOING PROVEN against Mr. Hammer, how can he "disregard" or "not take seriously" failed bureaucratic actions against him? But the pitchfork-wielding mob needs their dose of adrenaline, I guess.... Nuts. Carrite (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and well said. The first few posts here are downright surreal. It's like the basic concept was "Well, the RFC didn't find any wrongdoing, but I really want him banned, real bad. Maybe if I write up an ANI post that kinda sounds like he did something wrong, nobody will notice that he actually didn't." And the really crazy part is that it actually worked on a few people who really should have known better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah man, but, dude, you're just another deletionist, man. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oppose: I see nothing wrong with the renominations listed above BUT the message on Sandstein's talk page is less than neutral and not to be condoned. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Support blah, blah, blah who gives a f***. Grow up. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia instead of all this diva crap.  Tigerboy1966  22:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Based on the lack of any conclusions from the RFC/U and the ANI on TPH's actions last week, while TPH may be pushing good faith, there needs to be a lot more here to insist on a block as admin action. As Nyytend pointed out, renom'ing at AFD articles after a couple years is completely reasonable, particularly since TPH has argued that something changed (the contribution of awards like Ursa Major towards notability) instead of just restarting a IDONTLIKEIT-type argument. Yes, trout to TPH to work a bit less aggressively towards these ends (such as opening a discussion at web comics project to try to resolve the issue beforehand), but stuff like that is neither required or demanded by any policy/guideline - TPH is using valid processes to challenge articles he believes aren't appropriate. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Andrew Lenahan. I object to banning someone when one of the reason is "renominating an article that was nominated years before" and for treating WP:BEFORE as if it is a policy. That said, canvassing is to be avoided, and not all AFDs were well chosen. A trout is more appropriate than a ban. But the RFC/U was not the open and shut case that the OP here states it to have been. . Edison (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I admit I could've phrased my comments to Sandstein a little more neutrally, but I still don't think it's canvassing unless you outright tell someone to !vote a certain way. I was not asking Sandstein to !vote "delete" in the AFDs — just asking him to weigh in since he'd handled AFDs on similar topics. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not familiar with TPH and AfDs in general but, in isolation, I don't see the message on Sandstein's page as problematic. I've had editors ask me not to take admin action on particular articles because they think they know which way I'll read consensus (they are usually wrong) and that's just a normal business practice. No admin is obliged to act on a user request. --regentspark (comment) 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
if you think of this as normal business practice for an admin, I really wonder. I cannot imagine responding to such as request, and I find it hard to imagine anyone who knew the way we work here would ask me; I don't think anyone ever has. Even given that TPH is a zealot, I wouldn't have expected it of him either. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose- 6 months is far too long. Consider limiting quantity to single nomination or one consolidated definitely related set per listing period through 30 June. Dru of Id (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen worse than 'You close discussions about topic X; editor Y is doing Z.' Dru of Id (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I raised the RFC/U/. I'd like to see this topic ban - but not for this reason. This is just nit-picking over the letter of policy, not principles, and we shouldn't work that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I cannot endorse such a long topic ban at this time. In this thread I suggested some restrictions that seemed to me to meet most of the concerns raised without being unduly burdensome. Bovlb (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest (noting the substantial opposition to an actual XfD ban) a 3 month strict probation regarding his behaviour at XfDs, including a ban on any solicitication of anyone at all in any regard to any XfDs, as well as a bar on him engaging in any of the behaviours which were rightly noted at the RFC/U. Collect (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me give you a concrete example of why this isn't a desirable outcome. Mr. Hammer and I were recently on opposite sides of an AfD debate — we disagree probably 90% of the time when we're both chiming in on the same thing, it's nothing new. The piece was an unsourced thing on a Portuguese folk dance. I basically used a lot of words to make an IAR defense — which, as AfD regulars know, is effective very infrequently. Mr. Hammer wants to see sources or it should be gone, my perspective: hang loose, sources are out there, WP is better with an unsourced stub about a real thing than without it. Mr. Hammer popped onto my talk page politely calling me out — "so how do you propose we source this out if there are no sources." It got me reengaged in the debate, and it was healthy. I don't recall or care all that much about the ultimate outcome, the point is that for AfD to work properly it needs to be a place where honest debate can happen, where different ideas can contend and where consensus can emerge. If Mr. Hammer was subject to a "strict probation," his calling out my (to him) fuzzy logic would never have happened and the process would have been stilted.
TPH certainly has a way to lessen the stress level of all, in my opinion, which is by being very serious about following WP:BEFORE and when he finds a huge web footprint for a subject — even if they are all so-called "unreliable sources" floating to the top of Google — to stop being quite so fired up to charge on to AfD, but to rather tag the piece for sources without making a deletion challenge. But that's my opinion and he's a principled deletionist. That's life, not everybody agrees about everything always. But here's the point: Mr. Hammer is a dedicated AfD regular, that is a primary form of his volunteer work in support of The Project, and he should not be trashed for doing what he believes is right. Carrite (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose This proposal is vastly out of proportion to the outcome of the RfC/U, where there was nothing near a consensus for any ban at all. Renominating AfDs was also covered at the RfC/U, where, again, there was no consensus that there was a problem. As for posting on Sandstein's talk page, that was questionable although I did not see it as canvassing. In any event, proposing a 6 month ban because of that posting is vastly out of proportion to what happened. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst TPH may well be a pitt-bull who requires a leash, this proposal requires a foundation on an incident. An examination of that foundation upon which you have rested your proposal will show those interested that it has insufficient merit at this time. Better to be patient waiting for something satisfactory to come along, rather than a false start like this proposal, which will fail. Penyulap ☏ 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The talk page message is rather minor, and isn't worth a topic ban. The AfD's linked in the complaint don't seem inappropriate to me (enough time had elapsed since the previous AfD in each case, or the previous AfD was speedily withdrawn by TPH and therefore doesn't count). I'm not seeing any problem serious enough to warrant a topic ban, particularly not a topic ban which spans all XfD's (as no problem has even been discussed outside of AfD). -Scottywong| express _ 23:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose but only on the ground that one such incident isn't enough. I think we as admins need to issue a very strong warning that this sort of administrator shopping is not acceptable. I think it's pretty outrageous to ask a particular admin to close an AfD in any case, or to ask a particular admin to close any other discussion. One can invite a person --even an admin--to look at an AfD, if there's a good neutral reason for doing so, such as involvement in very similar AfDs, but to suggest any particular action such as closing, is unacceptable. It is particularly wrong to suggest closing, rather than comment: what one comments will be judged by a third person entirely in the context of other comments; if one closes one is doing an individual final action. It can be fine to ask a particular admin whom one happens to know to do something obvious, like deal with a vandal, but not something that is already before the community. (it's not Canvassing and shouldn't be confused with it; it's worse than canvassing, especially as TPH brought the AfD nominations in these articles himself. I consider it not a reason for topic ban, but for blocking; an attempt to pervert community process.) Sandstein, as we would all expect, responded just as he should have. I don't think we need a specific policy against it--it's covered by the general policy on disruption. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that a warning about administrator shopping would be appropriate. I'm sure TPH knows he fucked up in that regard. The basic problem is that such shopping (especially by a nominator) makes for an "involved" rather than neutral judge of the debate and fuels a battleground mentality. A warning that a week in the sin bin will occur for a repeat performance, with escalating blocks thereafter for the identical offense, would seem appropriate. Carrite (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess I was looking that the totality of problems since the RFC/U, and the canvassing was the icing on the cake. I'm still shocked that he wouldn't just voluntarily pull back on XfD for a while and review his actions more. I genuinely like Hammer, and I'm afraid he is going to be in for a rougher time down the road if the brakes aren't applied here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Not for this. Although it would probably be best for everyone if TPH decided to take a voluntary n month break from XfD. —Ruud 00:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose TPH concerns me, but this concerns me more. If the community comes to the consensus that something needs to be done, I'd be willing to act as a gatekeeper, approving TPH's nominations before they go live. I don't think anyone would be concerned that I would stand in the way of valid nominations, and I don't have a reputation for frivolous nominations, either.—Kww(talk) 00:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree that TPH should take a voluntary break from AfDs for a while, but this doesn't justify a ban from them. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Logical Cowboy's comment. It seems out of proportion and overdone. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as out of proportion, which strikes me as a good term to use. DGG's comment, though, is worth taking in. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support TPH has in my experience a tendency to stretch policies and ignore certain aspects that he finds inconvenient. In this discussion he has been arguing that if his message is worded neutrally it isn't canvassing, which rather ignores the issue that a neutral message to a partisan audience is canvassing. Suggesting that a particular admin who has closed similar close AFDs in a way TPH approved of should close particular AFDs is canvassing, and the neutrality of the phrasing is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether that admin would actually have agreed with TPH, the issue is that TPH was trying to pick an admin who was likely to close the AFD in a particular way. I'm sure that if one of my fellow Article Rescue Squadron members had asked me to close those AFDs TPH would consider it canvassing regardless of the neutrality of the phrasing. A 6 month or even a three month break from the deletion process would give TPH time to get more involved in other aspects of the project, and hopefully get a little more perspective on the situation. ϢereSpielChequers 06:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - per much of the above. (My personal experience, going back years, is that TPH treats AFD like gambling: "Let's see who shows up for this nom, maybe we'll get this one deleted. If not, I can always say I was just looking for a discussion." )(And yes, please tell me I'm not presuming good faith so I can point to a clear section of that page.) I also hope that whoever closes this takes into account those opposers who claim to agree with the sanction, but only differ in what the duration of the sanction should be. We can always say the sanction starts immediately, and then have a follow up RfC to determine how long the sanction should be. - jc37 08:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban. While I might have supported a ban of short duration against initiating a deletion discussion, an all encompassing ban is unsupportable by me. My76Strat (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous molehill Are admins Wikipedia stormtroopers whose will can be so easily bent? These are the articles you seek said Obi-Wan-Hammer... Nobody Ent 10:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] BLP issue

CONTENT DISCUSSION, NO ADMIN ACTION NEEDED:

Discuss at Talk:Sondra Locke Nobody Ent 10:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Sondra Locke had two birth years listed in her article. I removed both. There was an open discussion on it. Having both years listed implies that she may have falsified her birth year. One year is wrong and could be due to a typo that some sources are using. Leaving both years implies a liabilty issue that she may have falsified one and it wasn't caused by a typo.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) This is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article talk page, there's nothing for admins to do here. (2) If there were something for admins to do, it should have been posted at WP:AN/I where "incidents" go. (3) Two birthdates do not in any way imply falsification by the subject, it merely means we have two different dates from different reliable sources. Obviously, she wasn't born twice, so one or the other is wrong, or maybe both of them are. But we don't decide which is, we present the supported facts we have at hand, and keep looking for a better source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If a fact can't be proven on a BLP it is too be removed speedily. One year is not a fact so both should be removed until one is decided on. Edit wars are already started there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

  • "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard."--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The material is not "contentious" and both years are well sourced. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • They may be well sourced but one is wrong. It would be the same as saying she was born in either Kansas or New York. If we can't decide on which is correct, then neither should be included. It just makes us look like we either can't do research or we can't decide which research is more correct. We can't create facts on a BLP.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

FoF 2.5 in the Race and intelligence review be amended to read: Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct.

For the Arbitration Committee,

-- Lord Roem (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

[edit] Non-English articles

Hi. Whilst on new article patrol I've come across articles written in languages other than English several times, but I'm never sure what to do with them. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the proper course of action is? Take this article as an example (likely to be deleted under A10 soon, but I guess you guys can see it anyway). Thanks Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NPP#Dealing with foreign language new pages. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Tag them with {{notenglish}}, follow the instructions in the template to list it at WP:PNT, and if you can make sense of the google translation then tag it for speedy deletion/prod/afd or redirect it if it meets a criteria--Jac16888 Talk 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
And if it was copied from another language wiki, tag it A2 (I've only had occasion to do it once, it was a town article copied and pasted from pt.wiki, so it doesn't happen often). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright question (large blockquotes)

On the page section 69_(sex_position)#History, the entire text is apparently just quoting from a source, Legman 1969, pp. 289-301. I would think that this would be an inappropriate use of the text since the source is presumably still under copyright and rewording to only reference the source is possible. I would greatly appreciate if someone could look at this and determine if copyright problems exist. OSborn arfcontribs. 21:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That is unacceptable. It's not even info that couldn't be paraphrased. Secretlondon (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Do we need another notice board?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Do we need another notice board?
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=494563856"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages