Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:An)
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by ClueBot III.

  • Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
  • If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page – email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.
Shortcuts:

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.

Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages

Certified pages

General
Use of administrator privileges

Contents

Requests for closure[edit]

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

Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Citation#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation (initiated 30 April 2014)? The opening poster wrote:

As a side-effect of using Module:Citation/CS1 to render the Citation template, all the warning messages issued for Citation Style 1 will now be issued for Citation. (Many of these warning messages are not turned on by default yet.) This means that editors who use the Citation template will have to consult Help:Citation Style 1 to determine the acceptable parameter values. Does the user community ratify this change?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This does not appear to require administration, thus I recommend finding a template-editor to assess and close it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Now archived at Template talk:Citation/Archive 7#RFC: Same rules for CS1 and Citation. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:USRepSuccessionBox#RfC regarding ceremonial seniority position (initiated 27 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Not enough input to close properly. I notified WP:USA for additional participants. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  02:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure (initiated 28 June 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Archive 17#RfC North Tipperary and South Tipperary categorical tree structure. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 2#Category:Comprehensive schools in London? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 2#Category:Several categories related to women clergy? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 (initiated 26 June 2014)? The discussion is listed at Template:Centralized discussion. In your close, please consider the previous discussions related to archive.is:

  1. Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Archive.is (initiated 17 September 2012)
  2. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 104#Replacing WebCite citations with archive.is citations (initiated 24 July 2013)
  3. Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard/Archive 8#RotlinkBot approved? (initiated 18 August 2013)
  4. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RotlinkBot (initiated 18 August 2013)
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive812#Mass rollbacks required (initiated 17 September 2013)
  6. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC (initiated 20 September 2013)
  7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Sophisticated mass vandalism from IP ranges? (initiated 2 October 2013)
  8. Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 119#Proposal to Reduce the API limits to 1 edit/30 sec. for logged out users (initiated 2 October 2013)
  9. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive255#WP:Archive.is RFC request for admin review of closure (initiated 31 October 2013)
  10. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03#archive.is/T5OAy (initiated 23 November 2013)
  11. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013#archive.is (initiated 3 December 2013)
  12. MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Now what to do? and permanent link (initiated 27 February 2014)
  13. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive261#Archive.is headache (initiated 8 May 2014)
  14. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot (initiated 10 May 2014)
  15. Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2 (initiated 2 June 2014)
  16. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Archive.is (initiated 25 June 2014)
  17. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive845#Serious BLP violations by Kww, Hasteur, Werieth, and possibly others (initiated 30 June 2014)
  18. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#New Account Using AWB to Remove Links to archive.is based "the RFC" (initiated 1 July 2014)
  19. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ/Werieth#Followup discussion about archive.is links (2 July 2014)

Here are discussions with the Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC closer:

  1. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is RFC closure unclear and permanent link (initiated 31 October 2013)
  2. User talk:Hobit#Question re: Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and permanent link (initiated 11 November 2013)
  3. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is and permanent link (initiated 12 February 2014)
  4. User talk:Hobit#Archive.is matter and permanent link (initiated 19 May 2014)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion going on, but I think those can be moved to somewhere else.Forbidden User (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it might be best to wait a little bit more for results from Chris's email. I know I'm waiting to update my views based on it as well as the email correspondense link. I imagine I am not the only one. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been almost a week with no real discussion and no updates. Withdrawing my wait request. PaleAqua (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? (initiated 9 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Israeli raids on UNRWA schools#RfC: Should this article contain the section "other UNRWA incidents"?[edit]

Can someone close this? Nobody has replied for some days, and the consensus is unclear. This is perhaps because I did not phrase the question precisely. Kingsindian (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone close this? The RfC has run the full 30 days and has been delisted. Kingsindian (talk) 23:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard[edit]

Will an administrator please assess the consensus at this proposal for a topic ban on the creation of new articles by User:Aditya soni in article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:07, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)[edit]

Will am administrator please assess the consensus on this request by User:HighKing to ease the topic ban? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt) 2. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Governorship of Chris Christie#RFC: Should material about the New Jersey Public School system be included in the article? (initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done - There was a rough consensus not to include the material. Since the material was deleted, no change to the article is needed. A compromise was mentioned, but was not adequately discussed. If there is a desire to include the compromise material, a new RFC should be listed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?[edit]

Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates? (initiated 30 July 2014)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Now archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 113#RfC: Should the hidden navbar be removed from the base Stub and WikiProject banner templates?. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Years by topic? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 14#Category:Categories by year? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music[edit]

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 15#Category:Dates in music? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically?[edit]

Would an uninvolved admin please assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#RfC: Should participants in the personnel section be ordered alphabetically? (first initiated 27 July 2014)? Thanks! Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto[edit]

This thread has been open since 6 September, and there have been no comments in nearly three days. Could a non-involved and neutral admin assess this thread to see if consensus has been reached, with a view to closing? Thanks – SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

SMcCandlish temporary move ban - request for narrowing clarification[edit]

I – SMcCandlish – was banned for three months from directly making page moves, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive847#Undiscussed page moves by SMcCandlish: "SMcCandlish is banned from making page moves for 3 months. They may still participate in RM discussions, discussions over titles and so forth, but not move pages." That ban is over in about a month. In the interim, I ask that its wording be clarified, and WP:Editing restrictions be updated with the clarification. The wording is over-broad, and needs to be narrowed to

apply only topages about which some controversy could conceivably arise. In particular, it should

not apply to pages within my own userspace, nor to recent pages (in any namespace) of which I am the sole editor (or sole substantive editor; no one cares about a tweak by a bot, or someone's off-hand typo fix). The ban's excessively broad wording is impeding my ability to develop templates and do other routine work on new stuff that no one has any interest in until it's no longer in draft/alpha form. While I would love to assume in good faith that no one would notice or make trouble about an obviously non-controversial move of one of my own pages, someone has already filed one WP:POINTy, vexatious, rejected ANI case against me for even daring to use WP:RM, so I'm not taking any chances.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see revised request.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support allowing the moving of pages created within userspace to other titles within userspace, or from userspace to mainspace. Oppose allowing "recent pages (in any namespace) of which I am the sole editor (or sole substantive editor; no one cares about a tweak by a bot, or someone's off-hand typo fix)". We do, in fact, care about attempting to weaken a ban through Wikilawyering. The fact of the matter is that (as should be obvious by the fact you were move-banned) any move by you is controversial, as a result of your own actions. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly oppose: I'm not thrilled with SMC's manner in the above request for a reduction in sanction. It reflects much the same disruptive attitude that led to the current sanction. SMC: Assuming good faith, the problem that led to your pagemove ban resulted from repeated mistakes on your part in considering certain pagemoves to be uncontroversial. I'm sorry, but the onus is on you to demonstrate that your understanding has changed, preferably through a track record of success at RM (which I would be happy to evaluate if you have a list of RMs). That said, you are quite correct that you should be allowed to move pages within your own userspace. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC) (see below)
    • Based on SMC's statement below, and his compilation of statistics, I'm in favor of giving him another shot along the lines of his revised request below. And of course, when the original ban expires, any new limitation would expire as well. My prior concern about SMC's manner might more be an issue of the medium in which we practice; being assertive can come off as being aggressive, being humorous can come off as being disrespectful, and the like. As such, I would encourage SMC to review his interactions; I got the impression from the ANI thread where the ban was instituted that there might be a problem like this. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm a little considered about this: The wording is over-broad, and needs to be narrowed to apply only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise. I think this statement might be at odds with an understanding of why this editor received a ban. They're asking to be allowed to self-judge what's potentially "controversial" and what's not, when that's the exact thing the community agreed this editor was't so hot at. I would expect them to judge any of their own future actions as justified and reasonable. That seems to be how they got in trouble in the first place. As far as the wording being "over-broad" I think both closing admins, @Protonk: and @DangerousPanda:, commented that they were erring on the safer side. Were they asked to clarify the boundaries of their closing on this issue?__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • they didn't consult me but I don't think that's a big deal. They're free to consider the restriction overly broad and ask the community for input on that front. As was pointed out on my talk page and in a number of emails I am merely an empty vessel for the community's displeasure. ;) Protonk (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • There were two admins with differing views on what the remedy should say and why, one who had reverted the other, so it seemed less side-taking to just ask WP:AN for neutral administrative input than to ask one of those two admins in particular to modify it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer not to edit the restriction as proposed because it abuts against the actual locus of controversy, namely that many editors decided SMcCandlish had trouble distinguishing which moves were controversial and which were not. Changing the restriction to "apply only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise" would invite the same problem that caused the ban discussion in the first place. I'm not saying that SMcCandlish's actions will be as problematic, but I don't feel the need to push us back to the same place. I don't have a problem with allowing moves in other namespaces, but I'm also not convinced that there is a strong reason to do so. I'm prepared to be convinced on that front, however. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly support. We ought not fuss about you moving pages in your userspace, and if you're the only substantive editor for a page, it's not as if people are going to raise controversy if you're not currently banned. We ought to apply the G7 speedy deletion criterion's wording for pages you've created: if we'd accept your request for a G7 deletion for a page, you should be able to move it. The vague bit about pages that aren't controversial would be a bad idea, simply because it's so broad. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Normally, Nyttend, I'd concur with your reasoning that if we'd accept a G7 it'd be fine. But the difference between a G7 and a pagemove is that a G7 has an admin evaluation before the action is undertaken. Here, there has to be a reliance on SMC to appropriately evaluate, in effect, whether G7 applies, and to do so with no oversight. I'm not too crazy about that idea given the surrounding circumstances for this pagemove ban. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Well in that case, Mendaliv, at least you could support allowing him to move a page that only he had edited, or that only he and a bot had edited. I would expect SMC to know how to determine whether an account is bot-flagged, and if I'm wrong, he can be taught in a couple of minutes. It's not a judgement call; this kind of decision, itself, is something that a bot could easily make with complete reliability. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
        • That's a fair enough point. I can support that. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – at least narrow the ban to article space to make it unambiguous and not overly restrictive. Dicklyon (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - leave it as it is. BMK (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support page moves from or within his own user space. He should be able to move pages freely in his own user space regardless of restrictions. It is similarly uncontroversial to move pages from his user space to other name spaces. For other moves, he can seek consensus or ask for assistance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both clarifications. Sensible really, none of the controversial moves that led to the ban were to articles in either of these categories (own userspace or sole substantive contributor) so I see no reason why this would cause any problems. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Revised request: I ask that, before the move ban expires in four weeks anyway, the remedy be clarified to exempt moves within my userspace, moves (e.g. of drafts) from my userspace to another namespace, and moves in any namespace of pages of which I am the sole substantive author (i.e., other than bots, AWB runs or other automation, or trivial edits like typo fixes), on the same basis as G7. I wasn't expecting to be taken as proposing specific wording (which I've since struck) such that "appl[ies] only to pages about which some controversy could conceivably arise" would be in the revised remedy. I was just describing two specific cases, and then spelled them out after "In particular...": my userspace, and draft stuff I'm working on that no else knows or cares about. I think this should address essentially identical concerns by The Bushranger, Mendaliv, Elaqueate and Protonk.

    As may not have been clearly conveyed to everyone by my initial request, the point to being able to move non-userspace pages I've created but no one else has substantively edited, is that I already asked for assistance once (noncontroversial or "speedy" RM is a just a request for an admin to move something for you, that just happens to be filed at WP:RM instead of done with G6 template {{db-move}}), and I was tendentiously hauled in front of ANI again, where the complainant didn't get boomerang sanctioned or even slightly criticized, despite the patent vexatiousness of the endeavor. There is no reason to expect that my using any other method of asking an admin to move something for me (e.g. via a regular G6 or G7) won't have precisely the same WP:DRAMA result, unless this remedy is adjusted, or I just abandon what I'm working on for a month in cases where it needs moving around. Abandoned work usually doesn't get picked back up again, or I wouldn't care otherwise. A month isn't very long, but it's long enough to move on to something else and leave stymied work incomplete.

    Since Mendaliv asked: Unless I've missed one, every single RM I've filed, since the original ANI, has gone the way I suggested, both regular and speedy ones. I've gathered a big pile of stats for you. I would bet that most of the RMs I've commented in, filed by others, have as well (this has actually been true for years) but it's not something I would keep track of (the stats just gathered show about a 95% accuracy rate lately, with regard to how I !vote and how RMs close). It's also likely that most if not all of the very moves at issue in the original ANI will actually be sustained by consensus, because they were in fact based on policy and precedent, even if making them en masse without discussion was a poor idea. None of that's really relevant because I'm not asking for a clarification that allows me free rein to exercise judgement about what might be controversial. Some of the above comments' approach, treating me like some kind of dangerous wikicriminal, are a bit over-the-top. In 9+ years of editing here, I have but one other short-term topic ban (made by a deeply involved admin I chose not to appeal against, just to avoid the drama which probably would have taken longer than the month the ban was for). I think a little perspective and more good faith is called for. The accusations of wikilawyering, system-gaming, a disruptive attitude, and untrustworthiness to make any kind of move at all, are all particularly inappropriate and unsubstantiated, no matter how unpopular I am with some people.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  16:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • WP:ROPE support. The ban expires in 4 weeks. Loosen it now and give him some rope. Either hes improved, and this will allow a more gradual re-entry into the area, or he hasn't in which case we may see issues arise while the ban is still in-force and it is easier to extend. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Non-admin comment - am commenting only as someone reasonably familiar with the move/RM process. In my view SMcCandlish's statistics not only support his active involvement in improvement in titling (his statistics on both counts would probably be better than my own, his view having carried against my own on more than one occasion), but also his willingness to explain and engage. So if a non-admin opinion counts it would be a clear support. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Mobile editors[edit]

Many editors editing from a mobile platform have a button to edit articles but no button to go from the article to the talk page. If you are dealing with new editors in particular who are editing on mobile, you will need to provide them with a direct link to the talk page if you expect them to discuss something. The only way to find an article talk page from the mobile app is to actually enter "Talk:Foo" into the search bar. Please be aware of this issue in particular when considering sanctions against relatively inexperienced mobile editors for failing to discuss. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's weird since there's a link on the talk page for the main page but not vice versa...... AcidSnow (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: This is strange!! I can see an icon which directly takes me to the talk page. It is just beside the lead edit button, between watchlist and edit button. Even now I can see that button (editing from mobile) and I don't have beta enabled?? Any thoughts?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
P. S. On a related discussion, do you know that IP users cannot edit from mobile version Wikipedia?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
You would need to ask the Mobile folks - it remains very unclear who can do what and whether certain issues are bugs or current design features. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I see what Nikkimaria sees, in my case on an iPhone 4, Safari, mobile setting. I have to log in, and I can't go to the talk page directly. If I switch to the desktop version I have the regular old look, with the buttons for talk page etc--but I don't have reading glasses strong enough to read the screen. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Same for me - iPhone 4S, Safari, mobile. There's only an edit button and a watchlist button, nothing in between (I'm logged in already). There also doesn't seem to be a way to go from desktop to mobile without changing the url or using the back button, but that's to be expected. Ansh666 19:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of admin actions (India Against Corruption)[edit]

Checkuserblocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey all. The latest entry in this IAC saga is user:Name Defend IPA. I blocked this user as a role account, since their name and comments seem to indicate that. They insist otherwise on their user talk page, and asked me to bring this here on the suspicion that I am involved. There's a lot more history to this, but I was terribly bored with this situation when I was dealing with it, and cannot be arsed to do the digging myself. Sorry. I accept any judgement on my admin actions, as always, and my admin recall standards apply; any admin action I've performed can be freely reverted, if anyone feels that it should be so. Particularly, if another admin feels that this account should be unblocked, either to participate in this thread or entirely, I won't stand in the way (though I would counsel caution).

It should go without saying, but I will assert that I've never been paid or otherwise compensated for anything I've done or am planning on doing for Wikipedia (except for one of those t-shirts for Teahouse stuff years ago), I don't know Sitush from Adam (though I think they may have revealed their real name to me at some point), and know nothing and care less about IAC, beyond their actions on Wikipedia. But y'all can be the judge of that; don't take my word for it if you don't want. Writ Keeper  16:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The background to this saga is in this section at ANI and most recently the disruption by Name Defend IPA (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3. Note that "Name Defend" is the name of a website purporting to be an Intellectual Property Rights firm. Their website is at namedefend.in. According to Whois [1], the namedefend.in domain was registered yesterday. Ditto the creation of the website. The registrant is Sarbjit Roy. Note that Sarbajit Roy is the convenor of the current organization claiming the name India Against Corruption. Note also that here Name Defend IPA claims to be Claus Bruentrup, an intellectual property agent and the registrant of indiaagainstcorruption.info. According to Whois, a Claus Bruentrup is the registrant although the email address does not match the one given by Name Defend IPA. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
"PS: I neglected to mention that all edits of this account are being made through official servers of the investigative agency investigating Wikipedia." Whether or not this contravenes NLT, this is clearly a role account ("We are not concerned about your personal view(s)") and so should remain blocked. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not clear on the history here (I haven't followed this IAC drama), but the account name certainly violates WP:ISU. Can't the user simply request a new name? That seems to be obvious solution here rather than vague conspiracy theories. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a sockpuppet anyway. (The clue is in the fourth word.) - Sitush (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition to the not so thinly veiled hint at legal action and "investigation", he has now accused Sitush of being "a long running sock-puppet account for a Wikipedia Admin with high technical and programming skills who knows all about sockpuppet detection" and another editor, Wifione of being the sockmaster and in the employ of Indian "PR Fakers" with no evidence whatsoever [2]. Apart from the "role account" issue, there may be more than one reason for him to remain blocked unless he retracts the lot. Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
They have been making accusations like those for a long time. Indeed, almost from their first day here under another username. It would seem that they hope that if they say it often enough then it will become true and/or that mud sticks (as with their recent cack-handed attempt to frame me for copyright violation). Honestly, we should just block this person on sight. - Sitush (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
And with that, talk page privileges should be taken away. Posts should be discussing unblocking, not throwing out wild accusations. --NeilN talk to me 18:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I just revoked TPA. Can one of you please tell them how to request an unblock? I gotta run. Kids! Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Merge closure required[edit]

A month-old merger proposal that could use closing by an uninvolved editor: Talk:Brahma Kumaris at the United Nations#This is an advert. --McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Already done, by Graeme Bartlett. Epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it necessary to waste resources at WP:ANRFC for a simple close[edit]

WP:CONSENSUS seems clear at Talk:Legends_(TV_series)#Call_for_a_vote_on_hatnote_for_this_page, but Drmargi contests the results per this edit. Am I required to tax the admin resources at WP:ANRFC or can an admin just revert this stubborn editor. Please note the contentious nature of this hatnote with prior reversions on July 30, August 14 and September 10.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone needs a chill pill[edit]

Would someone have a moment to drop a note to User talk:Carmaker1? I stumbled across this editor today and his behaviour on Wikipedia is outrageous. I glanced at some of their edit summaries and they are both rude and intimidating. For example, "it is quite lazily presumptuous to believe that...", "I have warned enough of you countless times... Anyone that reverts this without reason, will banned for vandalism", "some of most stupid, lazy errors can mislead readers...", "the writing in this article is very juvenile"... and those were just the first few edit summaries I looked at. This editor's talk page is peppered with notes from other editors about the need for civility and less rudeness. My concern is that editors like this turn new editors off. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a definite mismatch between the edit made and the temperature of the edit summary. See these: [3] [4] [5] [6]. It's not hard to find others: just look for any edit summary more than a couple words long and check the diff. And I'm reasonably certain the claimed "vandalism" in these articles is anything but: it's that Carmarker1's preferred means of designating when a particular car was produced (model year vs. actual production year), at least in many cases. While I have no opinion on the content itself (I really don't know enough to say either way), the edit summaries are unacceptable. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)