Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Lol, [[WP:BAMBI]], I'd forgotten about that. There should be some fun trips down memory lane looking through [[Special:ProtectedTitles]]. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 00:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
Lol, [[WP:BAMBI]], I'd forgotten about that. There should be some fun trips down memory lane looking through [[Special:ProtectedTitles]]. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 00:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
: It's reassuring to note that [[MASSIVE C*CK]] is fully protected. [[Special:Contributions/86.148.65.105|86.148.65.105]] ([[User talk:86.148.65.105|talk]]) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Watchlist notice edit request == |
== Watchlist notice edit request == |
||
Revision as of 03:18, 27 December 2011
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 67 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 16 days ago on 22 August 2024) It doesn't appear as though consensus is going to emerge for anything in this discussion that's been going for 2 weeks. Can an admin please close this. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 128 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
- Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 97 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 77 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
(Initiated 62 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 54 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 42 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 33 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 29 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 25 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 13 | 0 | 14 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 79 | 0 | 79 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
(Initiated 71 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 23 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 37 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 322 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 168 days ago on 23 March 2024) This discussion died down, unclear what the consensus is. (uninvolved editor) The Banner talk 10:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 125 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 103 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 101 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 91 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 69 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 July 2024) – I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 13 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
For the Common Good
We now have a new Transfer to Commons tool: For the Common Good. Please try it out! -FASTILY (TALK) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The article Qizilbash is still being vandalized by IPs. It was protected for a few days, but now thtat the protection has expired, the IPs return. Please semi-protect the article once again. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 22:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Next time, please report this at WP:RFPP -FASTILY (TALK) 22:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Revert move
ResolvedCould an admin please see this and revert the move in question? I cannot do so as a new redirect was created at the original title. nableezy - 08:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Technical block review
I've blocked 82.9.215.103, who has persisted in adding unsourced information despite multiple blocks in the past. Just before blocking, I observed the big notice at the top of the page, which made me hesitant about blocking for technical reasons; I ended up going through with it because others had blocked it in the past, but I'm still not 100% sure what to think. Do I need to worry about it at all? Please unblock if blocking produces a technical problem. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think you're fine. It appears to be more of a notice to any user editing and/or the ISP rather than a warning not to block.--v/r - TP 15:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's exactly right. I use this notice sometimes, anyone can add it to any IP talk page. It is a (usually futile) attempt to Suggest to the user they will get in trouble with their ISP as well as Wikipedia. Good block, no problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Concur with above; 1 week makes sense; acceptable collateral damage, sadly. Chzz ► 20:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Quick stats on salted pages
Did a count earlier today, and we have a grand total of 35,613 create-protected (salted) pages across all namespaces on the English Wikipedia. Does anyone aside from myself seem that this number is a big high as far as openness is concerned?
Not to say that we should unsalt all of them, as quite a few of them are justified. However, we could likely do without quite a few of them at this point. --MuZemike 22:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we could rank them by protection start date? Also, we should focus on the article namespace, really. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 22:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see how start date is going to be particularly relevant in a lot of cases. Obscene or attacking page names will never be appropriate, while by the same token something that was aalted lad week because someone was recreating it could have become more notable in the meantime. I definitely agree that namespace should be used in prioritizing any review. Articles of potentially notable topics are a more pressing matter than WP space pages that wee salted for whatever reason. Any guess what the number of actual salted articles is? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the number seems a bit high to me also. I think it would be helpful to have some kind of mechanism for periodically reviewing salted pages. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Lol, WP:BAMBI, I'd forgotten about that. There should be some fun trips down memory lane looking through Special:ProtectedTitles. Tarc (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's reassuring to note that MASSIVE C*CK is fully protected. 86.148.65.105 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Watchlist notice edit request
I added an edit request for a watchlist notice several days ago regarding the possible blackout of English Wikipedia from the SOPA RfC. Could an admin please review the discussion and make a determination on the edit request? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
User:La goutte de pluie
User:La goutte de pluie is currently blocked and hence can't put a message here. She has a pending unblock request which requests WP:AN involvement and has asked me to draw your attention to it. Please can somebody take a look? Details at: User talk:La goutte de pluie. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I ask Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (who blocked) and causa sui (talk · contribs) (who maybe knows the background?) to please explain to us that have not followed the entire events, to summarize - I think this is something to do with the user adding refs to lede, and we know lede does not necessarily need refs, but... this is quite stylistic. However, I can imagine how such edits could be pointy. Can you please give very specific reasons, and diffs, for the block. Thanks, Chzz ► 00:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- From what I am getting from reading through the pages in question, the user was first blocked because of their editing to Hydraulic fracturing back on the 21st, where they removed a citation needed tag. User Toddst1 then reverted this (clearly making him involved, as I see no discussion on the talk page that points to a consensus on this). La goutte de pluie then reverted back once and was then blocked for that. This is...edit warring? Was Toddst1 also the blocking admin in this case? If so, this is clearly an instance of WP:INVOLVED, regardless of the fact that it's also a very inappropriate block.
- Then it seems, after being unblocked today, La goutte de pluie felt that, fine, if you're going to have a citation needed tag there, then you might as well have them for the other (abundant) uncited information in the article, so added more citation needed tags. While a little pointy, the overall purpose was correct.
- In both cases here, I see no plausible reason for blocking whatsoever. Is there other pages or discussions that i'm missing here that would put this in better context? Because i'm seeing two very inappropriate blocks here, for which the blocking admins should be admonished. SilverserenC 00:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- In regards to Todd's now-expired block of a few days ago, La goutte de pluie was engaging in rather odd editing over cn tags and references in the Hydraulic fracturing and Range Resources articles (as examples, she removed a reference for no clear reason twice: [1] [2], and removed cn tags for material she claimed was referenced in the next paragraph here). I reviewed the block, and judged that it was reasonable and that Toddst1 wasn't involved as his intervention was limited to what would be expected of an uninvolved admin - Todd's only edit was this in which he restored what seems to have been a perfectly reasonable cn tag which La goutte de pluie had removed. When the block expired she took up WP:POINTY tagging and was blocked again. I also reviewed this block, and think that it was OK. The length of the block is long, but given that the conduct started pretty much as soon as the previous block expired, it seems reasonable to me given her recent history, in which she's been blocked several times for disruptive editing: [3]. I note that two other admins have also reviewed unblock requests in relation to these blocks, and rejected them for similar reasons to the reason I did. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just checked out the Range Resources article too. I still don't see something blockable. The discussion on the talk page has La goutte clearly pointing out that the reference in the next paragraph covered the information in the one before it. The others felt (which I agree with) that there should be a cite for every paragraph, even if it's a duplicate cite. However, instead of then doing the simple method of extending the citation over to the paragraph as La goutte pointed out, the two users just reverted it and left the citation needed tag in. That's the issue here. The other two were edit warring a citation needed tag that was clearly pointed out to be referenced. I consider that to be the disruptive action.
- In regards to Todd's now-expired block of a few days ago, La goutte de pluie was engaging in rather odd editing over cn tags and references in the Hydraulic fracturing and Range Resources articles (as examples, she removed a reference for no clear reason twice: [1] [2], and removed cn tags for material she claimed was referenced in the next paragraph here). I reviewed the block, and judged that it was reasonable and that Toddst1 wasn't involved as his intervention was limited to what would be expected of an uninvolved admin - Todd's only edit was this in which he restored what seems to have been a perfectly reasonable cn tag which La goutte de pluie had removed. When the block expired she took up WP:POINTY tagging and was blocked again. I also reviewed this block, and think that it was OK. The length of the block is long, but given that the conduct started pretty much as soon as the previous block expired, it seems reasonable to me given her recent history, in which she's been blocked several times for disruptive editing: [3]. I note that two other admins have also reviewed unblock requests in relation to these blocks, and rejected them for similar reasons to the reason I did. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- All of the "disruptive editing" i'm seeing in both articles is something that should have never been an issue, as the reverting users could have then just added references according to La goutte's comments, rather than edit warring a citation needed tag back in. SilverserenC 01:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is a plausible line of thought, but I was not optimistic that it would be worth the effort since LGDP was arguing that the extra citations are unnecessary and that repeating a citation in a following paragraph is actually "spam". The issue is more over the serious misconceptions about why citations are important and how they should be used. Our case would be stronger had I actually copied the citation to the prior paragraph and been reverted, but the song remains the same. LGDP could resolve all this easily by agreeing to follow the community expectations about citations explained in WP:V and WP:CITE. causa sui (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's something that requires discussion first then with the user in question. It's true that the information was already verified in the next source right in the article itself. I consider using a reference in each paragraph, if it is a duplicate one, really an editor opinion. I'm for using them for each paragraph, other users are for using them every sentence or every other sentence. And La goutte is for using them at the end of where the information from the reference stops. This is a style issue. And the two of you were antagonizing, as stated by La goutte, by continuing to add the citation needed tag. SilverserenC 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't view my edits or comments as antagonistic, at least not deliberately so. I'll answer your other points below so that we can have one thread. causa sui (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's something that requires discussion first then with the user in question. It's true that the information was already verified in the next source right in the article itself. I consider using a reference in each paragraph, if it is a duplicate one, really an editor opinion. I'm for using them for each paragraph, other users are for using them every sentence or every other sentence. And La goutte is for using them at the end of where the information from the reference stops. This is a style issue. And the two of you were antagonizing, as stated by La goutte, by continuing to add the citation needed tag. SilverserenC 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is a plausible line of thought, but I was not optimistic that it would be worth the effort since LGDP was arguing that the extra citations are unnecessary and that repeating a citation in a following paragraph is actually "spam". The issue is more over the serious misconceptions about why citations are important and how they should be used. Our case would be stronger had I actually copied the citation to the prior paragraph and been reverted, but the song remains the same. LGDP could resolve all this easily by agreeing to follow the community expectations about citations explained in WP:V and WP:CITE. causa sui (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- All of the "disruptive editing" i'm seeing in both articles is something that should have never been an issue, as the reverting users could have then just added references according to La goutte's comments, rather than edit warring a citation needed tag back in. SilverserenC 01:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also hesitate to focus on the one revert, and I don't think it makes Todd involved either. The removal of the tags on at least two articles is patently disruptive and she ignored multiple editors on her user talk page trying to correct to her numerous and severe misconceptions about how citations work. It is not a content dispute - there is no dispute. There is one editor who seems to be editing in good faith but disruptively, against policy, and disregarding diplomatic efforts on user talk. If an admin judges that a series of edits are worthy of a block, then it usually follows that those edits should also be reverted. That is not breach of admin involvement, which is when an administrator uses sysop tools to enforce his or her own position in a content dispute. causa sui (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the "diplomatic efforts" here, where La goutte clearly points out that the reference in the next paragraph covers the prior paragraph as well? But where you two kept adding a citation needed tag even after it was pointed out that the reference was right there in the next paragraph and all you had to do was move it up? SilverserenC 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I mean on her talk page. Talk:Range Resources was more of a one-to-one discussion. You're the first person aside from LGDP to suggest that this isn't clear-cut. WP:CITE says "However, editors are strongly advised to provide citations for all information added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed", which seems to me to be pretty unambiguous. I think there's a kind of WP:BEFORE argument here where it looks like I could have just moved the citation up myself. But the issue wasn't that LGDP was refusing to do the legwork to copy-paste a ref. It was that she was, and is, arguing that it's actually wrong to cite sources, because (for example) "it is more enlightening for a reader to click on the wikilink where he can see multiple references supporting different parts (in detail) of a rather simple point." The depth of misunderstanding about citations, how to use them, and why they're important is a problem. That's my $.02. But since I'm not the blocking admin, I'll let Todd speak for himself when he gets back, since he may have a different way of explaining it. causa sui (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That was never my opinion. I never said it was wrong to cite sources. I'm actually pretty flexible either way. I mean, I would have just as readily duplicated a reference to solve the issue. What I was alarmed about was that causa seemed to requiring a separate, completely new citation there (because he kept on ignoring the clearly-connected references and context). My other statements were just observations on the status quo in the project.
- I mean, as far as I know, we work by common sense; content, not the little circumstances of format, should dictate citations. For example if I break up a paragraph, that had one reference into a one line paragraph and a four-line paragraph, which are directly connected and use the same reference, just so it reads easier, it seems really disruptive to tag that one line with [citation needed] as though to mock me for my formatting preferences, when the tagger could just as easily copy the reference him or herself.
- On the hydraulic fracturing page, causa, instead of going to the wikilink and copying citations 14 and 15 from the article documenting the Act, tagged a well-known fact as "citation needed". In hindsight, though I disagreed that it was blockable, I realised it never hurts to copy a citation. Previously, I thought asking citations for basic or well-known or easily-derived facts (contextual to audience) were OK but not necessary. After Toddst's block, I saw the merit of causa's approach and actually changed my position. Furthermore, laziness seems to be acceptable, so I don't get what's wrong with going around tagging things with [citation needed] when you think they need citations anyway, and let others do the work. It seems to work for causa. No one posted notices on my talk page saying the citation requests were unnecessary, so it seems my original opinion was wrong. How is it POINTy to change your opinion? elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I mean on her talk page. Talk:Range Resources was more of a one-to-one discussion. You're the first person aside from LGDP to suggest that this isn't clear-cut. WP:CITE says "However, editors are strongly advised to provide citations for all information added to Wikipedia; any detail risks being unexpectedly challenged or even eventually removed", which seems to me to be pretty unambiguous. I think there's a kind of WP:BEFORE argument here where it looks like I could have just moved the citation up myself. But the issue wasn't that LGDP was refusing to do the legwork to copy-paste a ref. It was that she was, and is, arguing that it's actually wrong to cite sources, because (for example) "it is more enlightening for a reader to click on the wikilink where he can see multiple references supporting different parts (in detail) of a rather simple point." The depth of misunderstanding about citations, how to use them, and why they're important is a problem. That's my $.02. But since I'm not the blocking admin, I'll let Todd speak for himself when he gets back, since he may have a different way of explaining it. causa sui (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the "diplomatic efforts" here, where La goutte clearly points out that the reference in the next paragraph covers the prior paragraph as well? But where you two kept adding a citation needed tag even after it was pointed out that the reference was right there in the next paragraph and all you had to do was move it up? SilverserenC 01:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also hesitate to focus on the one revert, and I don't think it makes Todd involved either. The removal of the tags on at least two articles is patently disruptive and she ignored multiple editors on her user talk page trying to correct to her numerous and severe misconceptions about how citations work. It is not a content dispute - there is no dispute. There is one editor who seems to be editing in good faith but disruptively, against policy, and disregarding diplomatic efforts on user talk. If an admin judges that a series of edits are worthy of a block, then it usually follows that those edits should also be reverted. That is not breach of admin involvement, which is when an administrator uses sysop tools to enforce his or her own position in a content dispute. causa sui (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed this block as an univolved administator and unblocked. My full reasons are posted at User:La goutte de pluie. In brief, Toddst1 was involved and the block was a disproportionate response to the conduct in question. There appears to be a genuine dispute about whether citation tags should be used in the relevant context which all involved editors should seek to resolve on the relevant talkpages and projectspace pages. Both blocks appear to have been inflamatory and to have caused more disruption than the user conduct they were aimed at stopping. WJBscribe (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it was a bad idea to do this before Todd has an opportunity to comment. causa sui (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a really bad unblock (especially as this discussion has only been underway for a couple of hours and the blocking admin is yet to comment). Could an uninvolved admin please re-block La goutte de pluie pending the outcome of this discussion? Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with a re-block under the context that the original block was bad in the first place. SilverserenC 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The default is not for editors to remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. A disproportionate block was made by an adminsitrator in clear breach of policy. That has now been lifted. The behaviour that resulted in the block has not resumed. This is a content dispute that has gotten a little out of hand on all sides. Everyone should calm done and step away from the block buttons. WJBscribe (talk)
- That's not at all in line with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews, and you seem to be trying to over-ride this discussion with your own views. Your statement in the unblock request that we can't wait for the blocking admin to comment as they haven't edited since "04:22, 26 December 2011" is rather odd - that's less than 24 hours ago and it's the late afternoon in Ellensburg, Washington where Todd states he lives, so there's no reason to assume he won't log in soon. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not really relevant but, FWIW, I read Toddst1's user page (under "Who I'm Not") as saying that he does not live in Ellensburg, Washington. WJBscribe (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, thanks for pointing that out! Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not really relevant but, FWIW, I read Toddst1's user page (under "Who I'm Not") as saying that he does not live in Ellensburg, Washington. WJBscribe (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Then we can wait for Toddst1 to comment, but we don't need to re-block in the meantime. The whole point of the block, if there was one, must have been preventative. However, given La goutte explanation above, I think we can say the issue is resolved and since blocks are not meant to be punitive, there is no reason for a re-block. SilverserenC 02:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can I get the greenlight to tag articles now? I have come to genuinely like causa's galvanising approach, and it seems to produce results. Supposedly "basic to the field", but uncited, facts, should be cited anyway, because who is to judge what is basic to the field or not? Better to just tag it anyway. There's a lot of citation laziness in technical articles concerning facts people assume it's OK not to cite. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to see a greater consensus for the tagging before you resume. There's no urgency that requires the tagging to happen now, and I would recommend seeking a wide ranging cosensus before taking editorial actions that will affect many articles and are likely to prove controversial. WJBscribe (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure I remember there being an essay page or something in regards to the technical pages and what qualifies as commonsense information when dealing with specific fields of information, so you might want to slow down a bit. Of course, it's all a WP:BLUE verses WP:NOTBLUE issue anyways. SilverserenC 02:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Can I get the greenlight to tag articles now? I have come to genuinely like causa's galvanising approach, and it seems to produce results. Supposedly "basic to the field", but uncited, facts, should be cited anyway, because who is to judge what is basic to the field or not? Better to just tag it anyway. There's a lot of citation laziness in technical articles concerning facts people assume it's OK not to cite. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 02:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's not at all in line with Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Block reviews, and you seem to be trying to over-ride this discussion with your own views. Your statement in the unblock request that we can't wait for the blocking admin to comment as they haven't edited since "04:22, 26 December 2011" is rather odd - that's less than 24 hours ago and it's the late afternoon in Ellensburg, Washington where Todd states he lives, so there's no reason to assume he won't log in soon. Nick-D (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- The default is not for editors to remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. A disproportionate block was made by an adminsitrator in clear breach of policy. That has now been lifted. The behaviour that resulted in the block has not resumed. This is a content dispute that has gotten a little out of hand on all sides. Everyone should calm done and step away from the block buttons. WJBscribe (talk)
- I disagree with a re-block under the context that the original block was bad in the first place. SilverserenC 01:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a really bad unblock (especially as this discussion has only been underway for a couple of hours and the blocking admin is yet to comment). Could an uninvolved admin please re-block La goutte de pluie pending the outcome of this discussion? Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Bad bad bad... honestly... can our Admins not please behave responsibly, and ...well...OK, let me spell it out;
If a user repeatedly adds text - what do we say? STOP... talk about it... get consensus. Don't add it, don't remove it; talk. Yes?
So ... admins... you need to be exemplary. Same applies to you.
If an admin blocks someone - you need CLEAR consensus before doing ANYTHING. That's... well, obvious, no?
That's the whole shitstorm over MF, now at arb. And here we go again, with the wheels. The wiki is not on fire. So, let's talk. Stop doing stuff. If a use is/isn't blocked for a bit, so what? Is it doing harm? Chzz ► 03:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Susie Cusack content check
Can someone confirm that the content of Susie Cusack differs significantly from the recently deleted version.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tony, the current version is mostly about the roles she has played the previous version doesn't have that but has some other info that this doesn't. In my view very much not a G4. Not convinced she'd survive AFD though. Hope that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 00:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for starters, it was deleted as an expired PROD, so clearly not a G4 regardless of content. But yes, this seems a likely candidate for AfD, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Cusack. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Block revert
I suspect all edits by Naminyan may need to be reverted. First time I've encountered this, apologies if here isn't the correct place. 92.40.225.117 (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)