Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 47 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Riposte97: time sink

(Initiated 3 days ago on 22 June 2024) Obvious consensus has formed for a community imposed topic ban from "Indigenous peoples of North America, broadly construed". Admin close required. TarnishedPath^talk 09:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 78 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 75 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 69 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 51 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 51 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)

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)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 46 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

(Initiated 34 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 25 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	0	13	40	53
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	15	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 34 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 28 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 23 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 21 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting three admins to close long RfC

This is a second request from four days ago. The RfC on Genesis creation narrative has now run its full 7 days, and we haven't received any new arguments for a while. The subject has been heavily contested in the past, so I agree with others who have called for a 3 admin close. If any impartial admin who hasn't taken part has the time, it would be appreciated. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've closed the RM as no consensus, and it's already taken up further on the talk page. Two other admins are invited to participate, but I really don't see the call for three unless someone is trying to win- in which case, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Keegan (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not about winning. It's about establishing that this issue has been reviewed impartially by the community, not just one admin. This issue has come up again and again over the years... it's probably the single most discussed issue on the talk page, and it's an issue that editors on the page feel very strongly about, and which causes a good deal of drama. Having multiple admins review the discussion will calm some of that drama. I'd ask that we wait to close the discussion until other admins are given an opportunity to comment. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point, Jess, and my words were not aimed at anyone in particular. Here on Wikipedia it is very difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything. This is why it's about the threashhold for promotion on anything here. RfA, FAC, DYK, etc., cannot meet the standard. It should be noted that I did not close a request for comment, but a requested move, which is a different creature. Keegan (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You better stop posting comments Keegan, the PoV warriors are twisting anything you say to prove an abusive close... --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You might wish to get your facts straight; a 3 admin close was asked for BEFORE the closure. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the 3-admin close bit, i'm commenting on the bunch of users jumping on Keegan and accusing him of treating the debate as a vote or popularity content, despite him/her/it providing full rationale with the close of why it was no consensus. WP:AGF? --86.25.205.193 (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Ten minutes ago you were referring to "Typical scumbag wikipedians". Also, considering the scale of the RfC it would be better for the admin summed up (in the text) the various arguments and then arrived at a conclusion of the state of concensus. Instead of merely stating that "There are strong arguments from both sides, but there is no common agreement or acquiescence.". He also needs to clarify why "Neither argument successfully generates an encyclopedic name for the article." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems irrelevant about 2/3 agreeing since it's not a vote, surely? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I took User:Keegan's statement on it being difficult to get 2/3 people to agree on anything, as being a response to User:Mann jess, the previous editor's remark about having "multiple admins review the discussion". In the light of his previous claims that his decision was not based on votes or popularity, I don't think the "2/3" thing had anything to do with the editors in conflict, but rather, had everything to do with the minimum 2 out of 3 members of a 3 admin close that needed to be in agreement. If one admin favors Keep, and a 2nd favors Move, and a third favors Neither, then there could be no close. A second uninvolved admin has appeared on the talk page after discussion agreeing the discussion was No Consensus, so requesting a third admin at this point is moot. By the way, I was not involved in the discussion, and am only now starting to get caught up on reading all the volumes of hot air discussion. --172.129.70.13 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you've already performed the close it seems unlikely that another admin is going to step in and overrule your decision. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Reposted from the talk page: With how contentious this issue is it should have been a three admin close. I requested as such at WP:AN though I did so prematurely and so that thread is now archived. Consensus is not supposed to be a tally of the votes but rather a consideration of the strength of the arguments in respect to how well they represent policy and, though I am obviously biased in the issue, I believe that a cursory reading of the !votes show a distinct lack of policy based argument on the side of opposition. I ask that you revert your close and that a three admin panel decide the issue. If that happens and there is still no consensus for a move I believe I can speak for those in support of the move that we will drop the issue, but if the fate of this page is to be decided by a single admin then I'm sorry but I don't think that that can happen. Furthermore, if there is no consensus for a move, then according to the policy WP:CCC this page must be moved to the title used by the first editor after the article was no longer a stub as the title here has been unstable and disputed for a very long time. Lastly, whether editors here think that "myth" or "narrative" is more encyclopedic seems irrelevant in the face of all the sources that non-contentiously use "creation myth" as the designated terminology. To let editor opinion sway the issue is an egregious violation of the very essence of NPOV. N^oformation ^Talk 09:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One other point: you expressed an opinion on the talk page regarding a title and though it was neither narrative nor myth it's a gray area as to whether or not you're WP:INVOLVED at this point. I realize you were not involved previously, but the fact that you entered the discussion makes the situation murky. N^oformation ^Talk 10:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's quite clear, Keegan is not "involved": "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." Nobody Ent 12:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Good close. Nobody Ent 12:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I second Ent. WP:AGF - as has been touted by the "move" side consistently in this case - is thrown out of the window when its implications are bad for the WP:BATTLEGROUND? Further comment: bad form. Trying to claim the (completely uninvolved) admin is now involved based on some technicality of where he typed a few words (to try to lessen the acrimonious nature of the entire proceeding by giving a WP:THIRDOPINION after the close strikes me as most egregious WP:WIKILAWYERING. Also, WP:NOTLAW. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Noone is doing anything other than assuming good faith. An individual can in good faith make a mistake, we are only human. It does not mean we ignore the issues. I suggest you read this section of AGF: Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively, because just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut. I do not see the relevance of your link to battleground. It seems noformation is pointing out that the admin choose to involve himself in the discussion of the naming after performing the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

My citation of battleground has less to do with this specific admin, but to the warzone he got dragged in to when closing a request for move (not RfC) that already has plenty of entrenched warriors on both sides: I believe it is relevant, because it appears that mentality has carried over in to - nay, caused - this entire section. I don't think it's in bad faith - I think that Genesis creation narrative has been a battleground of POV-warriors for so long (years, reading the archives) it's now a razed warzone, everyone is shellshocked, and it's subconscious. (Hyperbole, of course, but I believe I've described my point.) When people start making socks (TCH & Zenkai) to prove their points, I think a battleground mentality has prevailed. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with John that Keegan was not involved at the time of the close. However, AGF is not in question here. I don't think anyone doubts that Keegan did his best to close the discussion properly and serve the best interests of the encyclopedia. Editors are claiming that, despite his best intentions, he made a mistake. I also don't see any battleground behavior, just users who feel that policy was not followed. I'd urge you to read over those pages again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're afraid you have to agree with me - chuckles </sarcasm>. Thank you for explaining the AGF issue, as I suppose, to me (who has not been involved in dispute resolution before) a debate over correct application of policy and assuming bad faith looked similar (at least on the talk page about the close). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 01:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't mean anything by that; it's just an expression ;)   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Since both you and Jess don't think that Keegan was involved I will defer to consensus and drop that matter. You are correct that that page is like a warzone, and closing that RM without a full rational and explanation of how each side applied to policy did not help. N^oformation ^Talk 01:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not speak to whether I think it was a "good close" in terms of the decision reached, but I do not think it was helpful to close the discussion unilaterally when 3 admins had been agreed upon. The goal of the RM was to come to a community decision and put the drama surrounding this discussion to rest. This close has had the opposite effect, stirring up additional controversy on its own. As such I don't believe it was a "good close" regardless of the decision. It's unlikely a second admin will take part now that Keegan has acted, which is why I asked him to revert his close and abide by the requested closure process. It seems he isn't willing to do that, which means this issue won't be settled, and the whole RM discussion was a waste.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You've provided a diff to a request for a 3 admin close but not evidence such agreement ever existed.Nobody Ent 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 3 admin request was initially proposed in the RM discussion and supported by a few editors. No one opposed the idea. It was then requested at AN twice. For an admin to bypass that and unilaterally close the discussion, it would appear, he is doing so in opposition to the wishes of the community, which would seem unhelpful in trying to manage a contentious multi-year long dispute.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You requested here, on a wider scale, but did not get consensus for 3 admin close. Nobody Ent 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. What community consensus are you referring to? Firm rules weren't established before the RM that 3 admins would be needed for a close, sure, but we're not a bureaucracy; every editor who commented on the issue before the close, both here and on the talk page, supported 3 admins. No one, anywhere, opposed it. It was not an unreasonable request, given the heated nature of the lengthy dispute, and ignoring it has only flared up tempers and caused the discussion to be further polarized. I don't think that's helpful to the encyclopedia.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That we would go for a 3 admin close was explicited stated as a seperate comment within the RfC discussion, 2 agreed (me and Dominus Vobisdu [4]) and noone objected, that was about 5 days ago. [5] IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the close directly contradicts a Wikipedia policy that was thoroughly discussed in the RM. That their reasoning runs counter to Wikipedia policy is concerning in and of itself, and the comment that gives the impression that the RM was closed by a vote, not a consensus, adds to this concern. It is deeply concerning that the closing admin stated that "2/3 people to agree on anything" is "the threashhold for promotion on anything here." That the comment was made at all in regards to the closing of the RM is troubling, because the number of editors that comment should not play any factor in how a closing admin judges any consensus. Given that this faulty close is based on a reasoning that is clearly and specifically mentioned in a core Wikipedia policy (WP:RNPOV), this suggests that the closing admin was not able to properly assess the weight of the arguments presented, assuming that they did not close the RM based on a magic "2/3" number as they suggest.

I would recommend that the closing admin reverse his decision, and leave the RM to someone that is able to properly determine consensus based on Wikipedia policy, preferably the 3 admin close that was suggested. Even if the comment left by the closing admin was a mistake, that they understand the policy, the appearance of a lack of understanding that they presented irreparably destroys any appearance of credibility that the closing admin would have otherwise had. (The admin stated "it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth" however the comment is contradicted by a core Wikipedia policy, WP:RNPOV: "editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and notable sources" which specifically mentions mythology as an example.) If the admin is unwilling to do this, then I suggest that this close by this admin be overturned, as the close itself was based on a reasoning that specifically runs counter Wikipedia policy. If this does not happen, the only result will be yet another RM that repeats the same information yet again, as this is a demonstrably faulty close, and the closing admin has provided reason to believe that the discussion was not properly assessed, and that weight of the arguments given was assessed without regard to Wikipedia policy. If the closing admin did properly close the discussion by determining consensus, then a 3 admin close will come to the same conclusion, with the added benefit of a confidence in the closing decision. - SudoGhost 17:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Considering that admin actions are as subject to community review as anything else and he's had multiple people ask that he reverse his close, one reason being that he didn't actually explain the closure, he should defer to this request and let this be handled by someone who understands the intricate policy issues involved. Admins should avoid even the appearance of impropriety and considering that he engaged in the conversation by offering an alternative solution before he closed, coupled with the comment regarding a 2/3rds majority, and then the lack of explanation, he should reverse and let this be done properly. If it's not done properly then this debate is just going to continue to wits end, so for the sake of the project please drop the ego and let someone more familiar with this side of WP deal with this. It's not a big deal, we're not on a WP:DEADLINE, and it's better that this be thoroughly vetted before being put to rest. Please allow a three admin panel to discuss and close this.

@Nobody ent: Whether his involvement is minor is subject to opinion but the fact is that before he closed the RM he became at least somewhat involved by offering an opinion on the matter, so he wasn't only acting as an admin at that point. N^oformation ^Talk 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Keegan appears to be treating this as a vote Diff: [6] The supporters feel that the move falls well within our policy on keeping a neutral point of view relating to religion; indeed the word mythology is mentioned there. However, a vast number of the opposition feel that this application of RNPOV is incorrect and doesn't skirt being inflammatory..

He appears to treat concensus as exactly a weighing up of numbers of votes: 'I'm not allowed to look at the discussion and say "Yep, they're right, that's what RNPOV says so that's what goes" because it the opinions of others in the discussion, not my own, that matter.. If he doesn't try to make objective judgements about the quality of arguments then all we are left with is a vote. This seems completely contrary to WP:CONCENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to post essentially the same thing as IRWolfie. I don't think Keegan realizes that he pretty much just admitted that he treated this issue as a vote but he did. He might not have simply done a tally of the votes to make a decision but he made it clear that he considered arguments that were totally out of line with policy in order to make his decision and thus this became a popularity contest. Admins are supposed to enforce policy as written and not make decisions based upon what convinces them personally. So what if Keegan or any other single admin is convinced of a given proposition? Admins aren't asked to close because their opinion on the policy/subject matter is important, admins are supposed to be neutral parties that determine whether arguments are in line with policy or not, and then to enforce the policy that has been determined by community consensus. Keegan didn't do that here, he overstepped his bounds as an admin by using his position to make a close that contradicted not just a number of minor policies but a core pillar. N^oformation ^Talk 00:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Twisting words to fit a point. I can respect that.

My point was the shared opinion that RNPOV does not have to apply to the naming of this article, and suggestions that academically this is not settled as a myth by definition. Policies like this naming convention are not hard, fast rules that must be obeyed on every single article and, conveniently, they fit your opinion. Users in the discussion disagree with your application of policy on this page, and they have the right to battle you and not have a policy shoved down their thoat. It's not numbers at all. It's accepting that people disagree with you and have relevant context to disagree. If you read the discussion, you'll find that several users raised other policy points and reference to whether the term myth is common place among academics. I notice that most of these points were not argued with in the discussion. There was no consensus. If the three of you would like to continue on about the close feel free to do so, but I suggest a break from the conversation might be helpful. Consensus is broadly founded on respecting others' opinions before setting on argument, and I'm finding little of that good faith here. Keegan (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It was argued that academically this term is used non-contentiously by an absolute majority of the source and it was pointed out that those who refuse to use the term tend to come from an apologetic Christian POV. Most of those arguments didn't even start coming in until the issue was posted to WP:CHRISTIANITY. This again demonstrates that you don't understand this issue well enough to close the RM. Do you know this subject? Have you read the sources? I'll say it again: the independent sources refer to Genesis as a creation myth non-contentiously. It appears that the only academic environment in which is contentious to call a story about a talking snake a creation myth is Wikipedia because at a university it would not be a problematic statement. If you followed the arguments as well as you claimed you would have noticed that there was capitulation on the opposing side that creation myth was the correct academic term but that we shouldn't use it anyway. Right now we are not following independent academic sources, we are following Christian apologetic sources. N^oformation ^Talk 01:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is not numbers at all. then why do you refer to However, a vast number of the opposition .... This gives the very strong impression that the number of people swayed you. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• This precedent effectively means that the word "myth" can now no longer be used in Wikipedia (since assumedly all other religions will now also oppose to have their stories labeled with this word (and actually for the sake of NPOV they shouldn't be called myth if Christianity's myths aren't called that)) with no regard to the number of scholarly sources that use the word. Religious fanaticism won the day, and we moved one step closer to conservapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah. It would be sanctimonious of me. Edit as you please. Keegan (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I think that reads as sarcastic but it was humor. Admins should read discussions for closure, deletion debates, deletion requests, etc., case by case. It's the reason things like WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST are there. This isn't a precedent for future closings. Things here have gotten melodramatic in that regard. Keegan (talk) 06:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we might do well to spend as much effort on the content of an article as we have spent on its title, let alone on a meta-discussion about the way of deciding on a title. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Precedent is a legal term and not applicable to dispute resolution process. Keegan's evaluation of consensus is not binding on other admins evaluating consensus in other instances. Nobody Ent 02:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know precedent is also not binding in the legal system, but it stands to reason that both people who will close RfC's and people who would start them would take into consideration previous outcomes of comparable high profile cases.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Binding? No. Is it possible that this decision will embolden other admins to eschew policy for editor opinion? Certainly. If he can get away with doing it then other admins can too. N^oformation ^Talk 02:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"Precedent" is an English word, not simply used in the legal system: think of "an unprecedented event." In the US legal system, a precedent may not be, strictly speaking, "binding", but a judge who constantly ignored precedent wouldn't last long on the bench. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

It also seems very odd that the admin refuses to give a full rationale: [7]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Especially when the closing admin made references to a discussion that did not take place in the RM ("but it is remiss to use terminology like narrative or myth, which is what the discussion pointed out.") and is contradicted by WP:NPOV. To my knowledge, no one other than the closing admin made a comment in the RM that neither narrative or myth should not be used, the discussion was rather which should be used. The closing admin was the only one to made these statements, and then closed it based on this statement. The closing admin made references to a discussion that did not occur, and stated that "to get 2/3 people to agree on anything is...about the threashhold for promotion on anything here." This was a discussion, not a popularity contest, and the admin's comments show a lack of understanding on this point. That the closing admin refuses to clarify this or discuss it further reinforces the fact that this admin should not have closed this RM. If an admin is going to close an RM, they should at least summarize the views expressed at least half-way correctly, make half an effort to provide a clarification when requested (especially in an RM as long as this one), and avoid giving any appearance of a "popularity contest" close. If those three things had occurred, I would have no issue here. The closing admin, however, failed to do these very simple things. - SudoGhost 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie-, you might not like his answer, but Keegan didn't "refuse to give a full rationale." You might not be satisfied with his rationale, but that does not mean he has to expound further until you're satisfied. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung will no longer be active!

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

---

This is stated clearly in his talk page that from January 25th, Kudpung will not be active in enwiki. He's leaving now? The story looks same like User:Nichalp! I'm confused as to what's happening here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipankan001 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

He's taking a break. People do it all the time. He may be back, he may not, he put a lot of effort into it while he was here, so it's all good. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Requesting Interaction ban between User:Eagles247 and User:Androzaniamy

Hi Folks. We currently have a situation bordering on harrassment by an administrator, Eagles247. Androzaniamy is a relatively new user, having signed up for Wikipedia on December 29, 2011. She has less than 900 edits to her name and I believe she is being harrassed by Eagles247. Don't get me wrong, Androzaniamy has made mistakes and is suffering from a mild WP:IDHT attitude, but I believe the Eagles's handling of the situation is both unfair and excessive. He has been asked to back off by both myself and another editor, but has refused.

Some diff's highlighting problems Eagles handling of the situation since he first commented on her talk page on 17 January (less than 2 months ago, when she had been editing for about 3 weeks).

• Eagles has left 4 warnings [8][9][10][11] and reverted her edits wholesale a number of times.
• Taken the editor to ANI twice - 31 Jan & 3 Feb
• He has personally deleted (or nominated for deletion) every article she has created.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] Similarly for redirects.[19][20] (plus variations) [21]
• I would also say he has inappropriately used rollback against Androzaniamy, somthing I brought up with him.
• Androzaniamy has complained about undue scrutiny from Eagles247 in particular twice.

I'm not questioning the deletions, I'm questioning the undue attention Eagles247 is placing on this new user. My involvement comes from WP:ADOPT, as she was trying to adopt other users but it was removed by Eagles. I offered to adopt her, but due to the amount of attention on her page, I believe my comments got lost in the noise. Reading her talk page is very revealing. I formally request an interaction ban between Eagles247 and Androzaniamy for a period no less than 6 months, to allow this new editor to actually learn the ropes without undue pressure. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Eagles has made some mistakes in dealing with this user, including two misplaced "edit test" templates. I will, however, say that Androzaniamy is literally and without a doubt the most rude and obnoxious user I have had the displeasure of encountering on WP. She has treated helpful editors like trash (including WormTT, and I commend him for his objectivity considering how he's been treated). I really don't blame Eagles at all, even though his warnings were misplaced, as most of the time I wanted to rant on her talk page as well. Most editors are more forgiving than I am when it comes to rudeness, so please take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I would block her until she agrees to start treating other editors with a greater deal of respect. Just going through her talk page makes my blood boil a bit. N^oformation ^Talk 10:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• In my view, the only thing that should be done here is a WP:CIR block on Androzaniamy. T. Canens (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  And in case it isn't obvious, I oppose the proposed interaction ban as unnecessary given my preferred solution. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

T. Canens, I don't doubt that that might be required in the future, but at the moment I believe that is excessive. I'm not keen on WP:CIR blocks - not least because CIR is an essay. I say this as someone who has applied one in the last week.

Noformation is absolutely correct about her attitude and communication. I should point out that I've also asked PamD to step back here, and explained to Androzaniamy that she needs to change.

None of this changes the fact that 4 editors (Androzaniamy, PamD, Nat Gertler and myself) have seperately pointed out Eagles247 has overstepped a line here. He's an excellent editor and I empathise with his point of view but now is a time that he needs to walk away, and since he refuses to do so (and I do not believe Androzaniamy has reached the indef block point) - an interaction ban seems like the right choice Worm^TT · (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for a formal interaction ban whatsoever. Perhaps at this point, Eagles needs to step back and let others handle things - they might even be too WP:INVOLVED at this point. We have had other admins in the past who simply needed to have a couple of colleagues tell them (sometimes not so politely) to back off. I'm making NO comments on the other editor at this point, as my advice is being given regardless of that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If he is willing to step back, that would be a much better solution than anything formal. His last responses implied he would not though. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had some interaction with Androzaniamy as well and have been quite frustrated by the way she interacts with others. Unlike Noformation, I decided to descend into that tempest hoping to nudge her along in the right way. I gave her the benefit of the doubt as she is still quite new, but her WP:IDHT attitude is quite an issue. I left one last post on her talk page, which was probably somewhat uncivil but gentle prodding can only do so much. I have since unwatched her page as her interactions with Worm and others has left me in the same state as Noformation. I think a full blown requirement that she accept adoption is needed at some point in the not too distant future. Might I also suggest that someone ask Dream Focus to stop inflaming the situation? Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The question of what should be done about Androzaniamy is a separate issue. No matter if she's good, improvable, or someone who should be gotten rid of, whatever the goal, the methods that Eagles247 has used are not the way to go about it. Having failed to force her off of Wikipedia by the official means (although even then with some dubious methods, using the fact that her pages' nominations for deletions as a reason when it included his nomination that was already clearly failing), he has chosen to use very inappropriate means, haranguing her with charges regardless of their accuracy - such as tagging as a test edit an addition on-topic and referenced information (if slightly misformatted, but Eagles has been here long enough to know what a test edit is and isn't) - with the obvious hope that he can simply annoy her off of Wikipedia. This is not helpful to either of the two editors - Eagles seems to be a generally good editor who has allowed this one person to get under his skin to an unreasonable degree - and more importantly, it is bad for the community as a whole, as good editors (plus me!) have to waste their time dealing with Eagles's inappropriate conduct and as the use of harassment technique makes us all look worse. And even if we agree with Eagles's goals, it clearly has not worked, and allowing something that is both degrading to the community and ineffective to continue serves no benefit. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I would support dysopping of User:Eagles247 - his overall interactions seem un-befitting of the standards we expect from an administrator. - Youreallycan 15:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Desysop is not the subject of this thread, thus voting for it is pretty much a non-issue. You can recommend a desysop as part of the discussion, but supporting is supporting an interaction ban (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Desyop is always an option, and is no big deal, it should be looked at in that way more. Hey dude, your raising a few issues, take a back seat with the administration for a while and come back in twelve months with a reconfirmation RFA. The User seems unable to comment over his personal bias from an administrative position of neutrality, this is a general problem with humanity, but users wanting to obtain and hold a perceived position of authority here should have the ability to aim for the higher ground. - Youreallycan 15:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• You would need consensus and ArbCom enforcement to do such a thing or a voluntary recall. Besides, this is not the point of the discussion and therefore would say this !vote carries no weight.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,078,266) 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban - My comment carries weight , if you reject it - I will move to the support the interaction ban . because of the no thanks comment he made on the 6th to good advice from Nat Geler and the fact that he just still doesn't seem to be getting it, a month voluntary? and then what, a return to the same? Youreallycan 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Have you seen even a few of Androzaniamy's contributions/messages here? If not, her talk page might be your first stop. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive115#WILKEPEDIA_PAGE_being_Abused_by_Administrator._Keeps_deleting.21_PLEASE_HELP.21 documents a past action in which Eagles247 approach to resolving an issue seemed, in my opinion, to be overly agressive. The block mentioned at the end of the WQA thread was lifted a short time later another admin. Nobody Ent 15:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• It appears that what we have here is an editor with competence and auditory issues, and an admin who's gotten so frustrated at those facts that he's just continuing to beat his head against the wall rather than noticing that the bricks haven't even cracked. I don't think we need an interaction ban so much as we just need Eagles247 step back from the wall and realize that it's clear that Androzaniamy, rightly or wrongly, feels that he is attacking her, not trying to teach her. At that point where that happens, the intent of your actions ceases to matter, and it becomes, pragmatically, "this isn't working, even if it ought to, so why don't we try something else." So, Eagles, I would suggest you step away, take some painkillers for what's bound to be a humdinger of a wall-beating headache, and let other editors and admins handle the issue of Amy - there are plenty of eyes on her to handle any problems that arise. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• ^Word. I'm nodding vigorously in agreement to everything Fluffernutter's encapsulated above and the solutions proposed.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, so did I (not often I find myself physically nodding while reading) - however, this only works if Eagles is willing to take that step back, as I mention above. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban per Worm/Fluffernutter; additionally hearing the same message from multiple editors often has a greater power/persuasiveness then hearing it just from one. (It makes it harder for the recipient to believe it's a single person who has it "out for them" that's causing issues). Oppose desysop; lacking a much more detailed documented pattern of missteps from Eagles247 we're not anywhere close to that. Nobody Ent 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a formal interaction ban really necessary here? How about just asking the two to completely avoid each other? Everytime one sees the other's name just step away calmly? I'm sure Eagles247 was completely AGF at first, and taking measures to this extreme doesn't help. They need reasoned discussion, not a pile of admins arguing about whether Eagles247 should be desysopped. So I oppose an interaction ban. Rcsprinter (state) 16:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Eagles247 has been asked repeatedly to step back, and has refused to. That technique has failed. (and this is not an issue of both directions - Androzaniamy has not posted to Eagles' talkpage in over a month, and has never to my knowledge followed him to the pages he edits). We should stop pounding our head in that direction. The solution is hardly an egregious one; it's not putting too much of a burden on Eagles - he'd be banned from interacting with one user that he has shown an unwillingness to interact with appropriately, surely a very minor cost for such inappropriate activity from an editor wh, with his experience and admin status, has both the knowledge and responsibility to do better. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. Like Rcsprinter123, I would have preferred a voluntary avoidance, but this comment - which really took me by surprise - makes me feel as though Eagle just flat out refuses to heed the caution. However, I really don't think this will achieve Worm's goal of allowing the editor to "learn the ropes without pressure." If the purpose is to relieve Androzaniamy of pressure, this isn't going to do it. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose any formal interaction ban. Eagles is one of the best young administrators the project has, and one of the most knowledgeable about project-wide policy who is also associated with WP:CFB and WP:NFL. The suggested desysopping is ridiculous; the suggested interaction ban is within the realm of discussion, but a far better solution would be for Eagles to simply agree to remove the subject editor's talk page from his watch list and agree to let one or more other admins monitor this very problematic editor. I have followed the user talk page discussions regarding this editor over the past month, and I have watched as Eagles' normally unflappable cool has gradually eroded. While I believe that Eagles has become involved, and needs to step back, I also believe that one or more other uninvolved admins need to step forward and bring some nee and objective eyes to this problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will stay off Androzaniamy's talk page for a period of one month, so long as others are more aware of this user now. Some users here who have interacted with Androzaniamy have flat out taken her talk page off their watchlists due to the insurmountable frustration it causes them, which is really telling of this user's behavior. I will not be taking her off my watchlist, but before my piling on of warnings yesterday, I tried very hard not to comment there or take administrative action with any of her articles. I thank those who have defended my actions and see what I've had to deal with, and I'm ashamed this has gone to this extreme. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose interaction ban. I'm not going to make this long, but this user is going to be a frequent topic of discussion (that's the nicest way to put it). Sanctioning Eagle247 for "over scrutiny" is not going to solve the user's issue. They've declined adoption in favor of adopting another user themselves. I'd prefer to see this user adopted, but I think their threshold for civility would scare even our harshest civility enforcers and would give heart attacks to our frequent civility...pushers.--v/r - TP 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I don't really think that this is necessary. Also Eagles247 has promised to stay off their talk page and I trust this user's word.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,077,651) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban. Not just for a month, but permanently. Dream Focus 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT the interaction ban.
  

There is enough evidence presented here to dictate that such ban would be best if it was PERMANENT. Rationale: There are few things worse than being new in a community and having someone -- and someone with power within that community -- pressuring you at almost every turn. Besides, it is my view that Eagle247 is behaving overly zealous, as if "taming" this user was his commission from heaven (pardon the crude comparison, but it makes the point). His proposal to JUST stay off JUST her page for JUST one month, is too little too late: damage has already been done to the relationship. And his poor offer is another recent declaration that he does not understand he is not a solo admin of this encyclopedia and that the best judgment would had been if he had --voluntarily and long ago-- disassociated himself from this user or, at worse, if he had just asked an uninvolved admin's help AND leave it at that. But his effort to pursue this user continues to be relentless. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Strong Oppose Eagles is one of the best administrators and most active in the project.The issue here is more of User:Androzaniamy's disruptive editing rather than a personal or content dispute between two users and an interaction ban will not solve it .Please note it is the disruptive editing which it brought the User:Androzaniamy to the notice of admin Eagles and other users ,admins cannot be admonished for following the edits of disruptive users or vandals particularly when everyone seems to say the user is most likely to continue it and has been blocked recently and warned by multiple users. This would demotivate admins Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just have to comment here. I'm in the 'oppose interaction ban' bucket, but I think you've misunderstood the point of those in support. The issue isn't that they feel Eagle24/7 has been at the forefront of addressing this user's disruption and has caused her stress; the issue from the supporters is that Eagle34/7 has gone above the threshold of administrator intervention with a disruptive user and has badgered and stalked his way into the harrassment side. It's sometimes a fine line and the supporters here feel he has crossed it and that has been detrimental to the development of a newbie and bitey. Just wanted to clarify.--v/r - TP 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed mentorship or block for User:Androzaniamy

While there's some support up above for the idea of Eagles247 needing to back away from this issue, I also see a number of users noting that Androzaniamy (talk · contribs) is floundering around in a disruptive manner. The user has, as far as I can tell, refused offers of mentorship and adoption in favor of continuing to make her own way, which is becoming increasingly problematic. It's reached the point where I think the community needs to force this editor to make a decision: Due to her competence and assimilation issues, Androzaniamy must accept adoption by an experienced editor if she wishes to continue editing Wikipedia. If she refuses to do this, or fails to complete an adoption/mentorship program, she will be blocked until such time that she is able to demonstrate that she understands how to edit non-disruptively.

• Support as second choice to indef block (below). The more I consider the situation and the evidence, the more I think mentorship is unlikely to crack this case. Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC) (edited to change the first-second ordering of my vote A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC))
• Support this proposal. I find this resolution quite necessary given the circumstances. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Better option than above.--v/r - TP 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment/Question Can someone speak briefly about precedence for this kind of action and successes? I've had a number of interactions with this editor and my opinion has always been that, if left on her own, there would be an evolutionary process whereby she'd either be blocked via reverts and warnings, or she'd 'get it' on her own and start to contribute in a more productive way... or, honestly, get tired of it and go do something else.... Is the adopter selected (like a public defender for the indigent in the states), do we look for someone to step up and volunteer? Just curious about the nuts and bolts... Wikipelli ^Talk 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that there necessarily is precedent for something like this. I'm offering it now as pretty much the only other option I can think of to just blocking the user for disruption, because I think it's gotten to that point. Any mentor would have to volunteer themselves (Worm that Turned has previously, for example), I imagine, since we can't force an editor to mentor if they don't think they're suited for it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There certainly is precedent for forced mentorship, but the successes might be harder to quantify. Myself, I've mentored a few problematic users who were either unblocked due to my mentoring or avoided blocks due to my mentoring. More than half ended up blocked, 1 by me when I saw no further future for him. The rest didn't cause much more disruption, a few are doing very well. I'm not saying any have become admins, but some you wouldn't realise they had a problematic past. I certainly feel the mentoring I do is worth it. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Precedent similar action: I have had no interaction with this user but have thoroughly read the user's talk page and the various ANI threads (this is at least the third) and to respond to Wikipelli's query, this situation reminds me totally of a previous user, Neptunekh2, who had competence issues, acted in a moody/paranoid fashion to offers of help and just generally didn't get it. This is compounded by Androzaniamy's impetuosity and out-and-out rudeness.

This links to the last ANI archive page (discussion #47) concerning this user, resulting in an indef block, and this page[22] shows the number of ANI appearances (each thread involving innumerable discussions and lots and lots of people's time and energy). Despite User:The Blade of the Northern Lights voluntary mentorship, the user continued to act in their own idiosyncratic fashion and, in the end, everybody involved just lost patience with them. I get the feeling that the same pattern would just repeat here. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to each.. Wikipelli ^Talk 12:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support It would seem that this is quite necessary as this user doesn't seem to know how things work around here.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,077,651) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

She's passed the point of no return in my opinion, and taking up a hell of a lot of time of other editors. I know I'm supposed to AGF but right from one of her first edits, the message in this creation, I thought Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap Trip Trap. Hard to tell. Fluffer, if a person is blocked how do they demonstrate they understand how to edit non-disruptively? Would you give her a holiday for a month (say) and tell her that if on her return she comes up with the same old disruption she is outta here indefinitely, no ifs, buts or maybes? That what you mean? Moriori (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This speaks directly to my thinking.. SHE'S not taking up time with other editors.... Other editors are taking up time with her. If those editors (disclaimer: I'm one of them) stop with the back-and-forth, wouldn't WP's processes just run their course? Revert when necessesary, warn when appropriate, block if need be... and life goes on.. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And on, and on, and on and...... The problem won't go away unless it's fixed. BTW, I have notified User:Androzaniamy of this new proposal regarding her. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Oops

• Oppose. Just block Androzaniamy already and be done with her, we have wasted enough time. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

as I mention earlier, I don't think she is at blocking point yet, though she is heading that way. I'd suggest we give it a month, which I thank Eagles for agreeing to. If she has not made noticeable progress by that point, I'll block her myself. That does not preclude her from being block by natural means or taking up mentorship to ensure she makes progress. Worm^TT · (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am uncertain as to what side I take in this, but it should be noted that she has improved during her time here. She's now doing sourced edits that are reasonably relevant to the material. She has stopped spending her time giving herself barnstars. Some of the objections to her have been overstated, but I would say that we are still at the point where the amount of productive time she costs from other editors more than makes up from what we've gained from her contributions; I'm just uncertain how far we are along the line of getting her to be more of a gain than a drain. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Point of information on above: She may have stopped awarding herself barnstars, but she retrieved them from the archive 2 days ago. PamD 08:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• This edit needs to be reviewed by someone other than me. Last mention from me of any of her edits for a month. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've undone the edit - for one thing, the edit Androzaniamy made there misses the point of that section. For another, it's somewhat ironic, very concerning, and highly inappropriate that they'd made that edit to the WP:IDHT section while a block ANI discussion is underway at ANI. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty provocative edit, yes, but not inappropriate in the sense you give because she made it before she was advised of this proposal. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Further irony is that all she has been getting is gentle nudges and prods. No one has given her the mighty stick... at least not yet. Blackmane (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

True, it was made prior to the block discussion, but it was made after the interaction ban discussion had started. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Edit: Just re-read what I wrote and realize the issue now. Sorry, I've corrected the line above.

• Oppose All problems are from people being overly aggressive towards her and just blowing things out of propulsion. Dream Focus 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Really? All problems are on the mass alone and the center of this problem holds zero responsibility? Feel free to volunteer to mentor her.--v/r - TP 01:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have explained things properly and in a civil manner, unlike others I have seen acting rather hostile and condescending on her talk page. If someone makes a mistake, you can explain it to them, not just go on the attack. Example, she had already said she considered a certain word to be foul language, and didn't want to see it. Then someone posted that word on her talk page so she erased it but left the rest of the message there. This was an honest mistake, but some blew it out of proportion, and kept bringing it up, oh how horrible she was for editing someone's post, etc. etc. Simply saying you can erase an entire message from your talk page, but not just part of it, would've been enough. Dream Focus 01:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The issue of refactoring comments led to my opening up an ANI discussion about her, and she was warned several times before the incident you describe, in which Androzaniamy tried to further censor "s*x" on her talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah yes, that's what it was. She erased that word instead of the entire post. You shouldn't be posting about that on a young girl's talk page anyway. Dream Focus 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Which policy says that? WP:Younger users, especially girls, should be treated differently than everyone else? The word was absolutely necessary in the context of the comment, which was to explain why something she labeled vandalism was not actually vandalism. Your suggestion that we treat this user differently because of her age and gender is entirely why she is considered disruptive by many in this discussion. FWIW, PamD posted that message to her talk page and had the sensibility to censor it enough to still understand the meaning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the proposal. It's way past time. Wikipelli ^Talk 03:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Salvio. I think mentorship will be a complete waste of time, and we are bending way over backwards to accommodate a user whose very limited positive contribution to encyclopedia building is accompanied by absolutely ridiculous amounts of disruption. T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support in the hope that she will accept adoption or mentoring, listen to advice on her non-article-space edits, and go on to become an asset to the encyclopedia. She makes positive contributions to articles in and around her specialist area (UK children's tv), creates reasonable redirects (OK, I'm something of a redirect inclusionist), but gets it wrong far too often in other edits. I think she is making progress, though she needs to accept that she has still got a lot to learn. PamD 08:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would certainly support mentoring, but forced mentoring is often pointless. Whilst I do have time to mentor her in a voluntary capacity (ie, she comes to me if she has a problem and follows my adoption school which will teach her to handle problems on her own) - I don't have time follow her round and make sure every edit is perfect. What's more, we learn from mistakes, but only if we believe they are mistakes - if all the mistakes are pointed out by one editor, especially one who's help wasn't asked for, it can quickly appear provocative. I'd suggest allowing her one month to prove herself, taking on mentoring if she will, and if she isn't blocked within that period and is still bumbling along problematically, block her then. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE mentorship or block for User:Androzaniamy.
  

Like my comment below RE: "Proposed indef block for User:Androzaniamy", under the current circumstances, namely, the Pending Status of the intricately-linked original topic of this noticeboard board matter above, now is not the time and, especially, ***not the place*** to present a petition for this "[either/or] forced-mentorship or blocking" of either of these two users, and especially the newbie. If such petition was approved, it would be tantamount to just the opposite of WP:DBTN: a subcommunity-sactioned consensus to Do-bite-the newbie. The use of subsections (like this one) to a Main Petition, should be avoided as it, almost always, tends to distract attention from the Main Topic under consideration. Yes, Androzaniamy has many points against her, but this is not the time nor the place to deal with them. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Actually, this is the time and place to deal with it. This isn't about biting a newbie. This is about nipping a potential future issue in the bud. And AN is definitely the place to deal with such issues. I also support the requirement of a mentor for Androzaniamy. This isn't about being mean or unfair, this is about guidance. Mercy11, when you open the edit window, it says in big red letters up the top that this noticeboard is for "issues affecting administrators generally". Worm That Turns, an admin, is bringing up matters affecting Eagles 24/7, also an admin. If not on the Administrators' Noticeboard then what is "the place" to deal with such matters? This discussion concerning Androzaniamy is a subset of the matter concerning an admin and thus this place is exactly the place to discuss it. Blackmane (talk) 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Blackmane has got it spot on. When discussions are brought to AN, it is very common that the entire circumstances are looked at, and alternative solutions are discussed. I brought this here with the solution I thought necessary, given circumstances (which have since changed) - I personally don't feel an interaction ban is required any more as Eagles has accepted that this has gone further than it should and has voluntarily agreed to step back. Androzaniamy cannot carry on causing issues, I'm personally of the opinion that she may well improve with less "help" around, but mentorship, forced mentorship and blocks are all reasonable alternatives. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to Mercy11's post in section below CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (if I'm allowed): I get flustered and might do or say things that I would never normally say under pressure and thrive when left to my own devices. My teacher says so too at school. A mentorship might be nice and I have put myslf up for adoption but maybe from someone who doesn't already know me so they won't stereotype me falsely. PLEASE don't block me! Androzaniamy (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support mentorship or block. I have followed Androzaniamy's progress for some weeks. She is making some progress with her work on Articles, but has huge problems interacting appropriately with other editors and making polite edit summaries. This is where she is falling down. I'm not sure mentorship will work given her inability to interact well but it's worth trying.--Harkey (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indef block for User:Androzaniamy

We have wasted way too much time on this disruptive user, who simply is not getting it. I believe that mentorship will be a complete waste of precious volunteer time, time that could be used to engage in far more productive activity than trying to rehabilitate a disruptive user with minimal contributions to encyclopedia building. Why we are spending so much time trying to retain a user whose negatives far outweigh the positives, when established editors with a long history of positive contributions continue to burn out and leave the project, is entirely beyond me. Androzaniamy should be blocked until such time that she is able to demonstrate that she understands how to edit non-disruptively.

• Support, as proposer. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as silly. How could she possibly demonstrate she understands how to edit if she can't edit? Nobody Ent 03:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We ask this of vandalism-only accounts all the time. Showing an actual understanding of the problem with her previous behavior would be a good start. T. Canens (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Nobody Ent, you might want to take a look at {{2nd chance}}, a response not-uncommonly given in response to block appeals. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support as a second choice first choice. Androzaniamy has worn on the community's patience a whole lot in a very short period of time, and I think her benefits while unmentored don't outweigh her detriments. I have increasing doubts that mentorship will be useful for this editor, and I hesitate to force the community to go through motions that we're pretty sure won't work anyway. If, however, the user will accept a mentor (and follow their advice) as I proposed above, I prefer that to this as a first step. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) (edited to change the first-second ordering of my vote 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC))
• Support While some, perhaps many, of the issues here could be addressed through mentorship, this user seems to be refusing to acknowledge any sort of problems on their part, a crucial first step to making such an approach feasible. In light of the numerous issues - competence, "I didn't hear that", unwillingness to work with the community - it's not worth attempting to spend time on this user until they demonstrate that it would be time well spent. There's something else about this situation that makes me uneasy, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if someone can be found to adopt/mentor her, and if she accepts their guidance. But would support as 2nd choice option if the above fails. PamD 08:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd oppose this for now, she's a new user learning the ropes and has made progress since she started. The amount of attention she's had would make it difficult for any user to operate. My thoughts is to give her a little time editing without feeling harrassed, and if she remains confrontational and problematic then block her. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This doesn't seem necessary yet. This user doesn't appear to be purposefully disruptive.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,163,768) 10:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note: One of her userboxes does say she is seeking adoption by another user. She does appear to be open to it.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,163,952) 10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Maybe so, but she's had 2 offers of adoption on her talk page and hasn't accepted either. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Well I would first consider mandatory mentorship before indefinite block. Remember blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If this user is open to adoption but refuses offers, then forcing this user to search for a mentor to help her edit better rather than stopping her edits altogether is a better choice.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,192,263) 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above.[23] I think that the user has received sufficient attention, offers of guidance, help and mentorship (WTT's offer dates from February 15th) that she would have at least considered being taken under someone's wing if she were not so self-opinionated. I also find it hard to reconcile the user's use of language and discourse and their (apparent) understanding and ability to quote wiki-policy when it suits them, with their claim to be a pre-adolescent. Oh and you can add trouting users for no good reason, rudeness, IDHT, obstinately insisting on wanting to adopt users with only a few weeks experience and so on. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support As second option to the mentoring/indef block proposal above.--v/r - TP 13:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as first choice. As I've said above, enough time has been wasted already; if this proposal does not pass, we'll be back here in a month... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE indef block for User:Androzaniamy.
  

Under the current circumstances, namely the Pending Status of the intricately-linked matter above, now is not the time and, especially, ***not the place*** to present a petition for blocking either of these two users -- and especially the newbie. If such petition was approved, it would go beyond WP:DBTN, becoming tantamount to a subcommunity-sanctioned consensus to Do-bite-the newbie. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

• Comment It would appear that you have not waded through this user's talk page or looked at their comments, diffs etc. on other people's pages, I would like to suggest that this user's behaviour could be used to write a new WP essay Newbies, don't bite the helping hands that are reaching out to you. If you look at the following examples: issuing a 3RR warning for ONE revert of two test edits; BITING a user and issuing a level 4 vandalism warning for a couple of unremarkable edits; trouting admins and awarding bad faith stalker badges and generally responding to people in a rude and impetuous manner, maybe you would like to revise your opinion about who is biting who? Most people have shown huge amounts of patience in trying to explain diverse aspects of policy, wiki-etiquette etc. to this user. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I will note that biting behavior on her part is explained in some part - albeit only in part - by some of what she's been subjected to, not just Eagles247 behavior discussed elsewhere, bot also some genuine vandalism mixed in with those things she falsely described as vandalism. Not that she was the wisest editor before then, and not that some editors didn't bend over backwards (occasionally, inappropriately so) to treat her nicely. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: not sure about that "genuine vandalism": her userpage said "These are my lovely userboxes. Feel free to add more or copy some.", so adding a userbox as invited is hardly vandalism, though re-adding it multiple times is perhaps user-inspired vandalism. PamD 22:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Even if you accept that a message inviting userboxes is inviting insults, that message was gone before the second edit linked to above, and after A had clearly expressed that she felt the previous addition of that userbox was vandalistic. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this in favor of mentorship as above. The block is built into that proposal if mentorship does not yield results or if the editor does not accept mentoring.Wikipelli ^Talk 18:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• This block will stop me from editing articles and yes I have made mistakes on them but not enough for a block. Please consider letting me be and I promise with both my hearts that I will try to be a better behaved person. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for now in favour of mentorship, particularly regarding interactions with other editors. I'm not sure she has the maturity to know how rude she is being. She may be just copying others, trying to be "Smart". (There's a lot of it about!!)Harkey (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose indef - support giving WTT a chance to work his magic once again. (he's got a good track record). — Ched :  ?  21:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Androzaniamy has already declined Worm's offer of adoption, and has already told him off in giving future advice [24]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Yikes, I remember reading about this user at least a month or so ago. We're still here? Flip rejection of mentorship as recently as 5 days ago despite blindingly obvious need for mentorship suggests that that route is not an option; which is a shame, because it'd otherwise be an obvious and viable option. Readily apparent that editor wishes to but is for whatever reason incapable of contributing without disrupting. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Editor was given the option of mentoring, twice and flat-out snidely refused. It appears the only reason they wish so now is to avoid the obviously inevitable block. Complete inability to edit within the norms and policies of this community. Support indef, with full extension of WP:OFFER with the standard 6 months working at another Wikimedia project and requisite adoption at time of unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  To both of you guys, I would say a forced mentor ship would be the better option because the conditions state that failure to get a mentor will result in a block but if they do get a mentor, the block will be avoided as long as she does what the mentor expects of them. I would offer mentorship myself if I had more experience on Wikipedia. There is no doubt there are some policies I lack knowledge of but, there is one thing I know and that is WP:BLOCK clearly states that blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive. I would consider this block to be punitive because it is apparent in this situation that an alternate route to fixing this problem is available and that immediately blocking this user, who may mean well by what I am seeing, that clearly doesn't know that what they are doing is disruptive does not go well in my book. If I were that user, I would be driven away as soon as I were blocked. Being indefinitely blocked is not a good feeling and believe me I had first hand experience on that one.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,351,764) 11:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  It's the second time in two days that you've harped on the merry meme that blocks are not punitive. While I happen to agree that blocks must be preventative, in this case you are basically missing the whole point of the policy. This block would most definitely be preventative: it would prevent this user from actively disrupting Wikipedia any further. Wikipedia does not work on a turn-the-other-cheek basis out of fear that we might end up biting the occasional disruptive newbie; if an editor is disruptive and has been repeatedly afforded the chance of mending his or her ways but, through refusal or sheer inability, has failed to do so, the only option is a block until such a time as he or she shows he or she is able to edit in a constructive and collegial fashion. In the end, we are all here to build an encyclopaedia. If one cannot work to that end, the only choice is to remove him or her from the project until he or she can. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

...and from the well-known essay on Mentorship: "Involuntary mentorship has a very poor track record and is not recommended". For example, the mentee can feign acceptance and do squat all with the advice and assistance provided. The best form of mentorship is by doing, and as this editor shows no desire to "do" according to norm, then go elsewhere and learn to get along with others, then come back when you're willing to "do" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but, of there's even the slightest chance that mentoring will get her on the right track even reluctantly, I would rather go for it.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,363,273) 12:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Back off the Hammer

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is well-known for his huge count of edits. Most of these are deletions: either blocks of content, or articles. The article deletions are getting out of hand and are based on an increasingly dubious interpretation of policy. This post is as a result of this WP:CSD#G1 List of most highly populated countries, a 30k article with > 60 references. I make no comment on the quality, suitability or future deletion of this article - which is now at AfD. In fact, I've past history with the article's creator (this is how I saw the speedy notice) and I've called for many of their additions to be deleted on quality grounds myself. What is clear though is that articles of this size, on ostensibly appropriate topics, are not suitable for speedy deletion. They're just too complicated to judge so expeditiously. In this case, it's not only a speedy but a G1 as "patent nonsense". To quote the last summary point of that rationale, "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." There is no way that G1 can be applied to this article, even if we choose to delete it very soon. Nor is this a new editor who might not understand such things.

This editor calls to delete what looks like an article a day. We have no limits on such, there is no good reason to have one - a valid deletion is a valid deletion. Yet looking at this vast list (which I admit, isn't easy) they're an unedifying stream of dubious judgement.

• WP:Articles for deletion/Wizard (band) (German heavy metal) seems to have been based on searching Gnews (relevance?) by one very common word and not finding the wheat for the chaff, thus claiming that no sources exist. It took me two minutes, and using a band member's name, to find sources. Perhaps WP:BEFORE was indeed followed, but in that case the Hammer's google-fu is clearly weak. There's also a mis-use of WP:BAND#1 to claim that interviews (any and all of them) are not sources, despite what WP:BAND#cite_note-selfpromo-0 actually states. We also see claims like, "If the band's article is deleted, the albums can be speedied via A9." I would remind the editor that the function of an encyclopedia is not to act as a score-keeping mechanism for how many articles an editor can manage to have deleted.
• WP:Articles for deletion/Xargs seems to be a clear case of "If I don't understand the topic, it's not notable". Nor is "xargs" a terribly difficult word to search for.
• WP:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day jokes (2nd nomination) was one I expected to be a clear deletion as listcruft. Yet it's not - it's quite reasonably sourced (for most items at least) and even if we pruned heavily, there is obviously a list there of large-scale incidents with clear secondary coverage.

Does it matter? After all, the barrage of keeps for April Fool's Day shows the robustness of WP in action. Yes, it does matter - because for everything that happens openly at AfD, there are others like WP:Articles for deletion/Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton that happen "under the hood" and invisibly. In this case, a speedy deletion was applied to an article already at AfD just hours after that AfD and with no time for any secondary discussion. Should that article have been kept? I would argue that its deletion was primarily WP:BITEy, where a new editor has created St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol (itself targeted for deletion) and because they created what should have been sections of an article as separate articles, these were deleted (and deleted rather than the rather more obvious merge). WMF tell us regularly that new editors should be encouraged, and this sort of response does nothing to encourage that. Incidentally, there are few Victorian churches in affluent areas that aren't notable, just on their architectural merits and the coverage that inevitably generates.

I'm bringing this to AN because RFC/U is both complex and toothless, but also because of the volumes involved. I consider that TenPoundHammer is acting outside of generally supportable behaviour, either through policy or consensus, and that because of the volume involved this requires a substantial and speedy response. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, this doesn't require "a speedy response." If it did, ANI would be the more appropriate venue anyway. TPH is one of our more prolific deletionists, but so far that hasn't been a bad thing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TL;DR 76.118.180.210 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, AN is not a place for dispute resolution. I'm sorry you have no faith in our established systems such as RFCU, (despite your claims some real changes have come out of some of those discussions) but that doesn't mean you get to use this board for whatever purpose you want it to serve. This is obviously not an issue "affecting administrators generally " and should not be here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is a good point, RFC/U has in my experience produced useful results and is clearly the most appropriate venue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• What they said. I won't disagree that I did make a couple mistakes here, but filibustering at ANI won't get you anywhere. There's nothing an admin here can do. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have restored the Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton article, Jimfbleak does quite a few out of policy speedy deletes. I have merged content to St Pauls, Clifton, Bristol. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, then perhaps he needs to comment here. Admins are supposed to be the line of defense against improper deletions. I have notified him. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC/U is that way. Seriously. If it is that much of a problem getting a RfC/U certified. Even if TPH doesn't respond that's just fine, because the more advanced (and binding) forms of Dispute resolution really expect that a RfC/U has already commenced and the conduct has not improved since that point. Hasteur (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes a discussion here or at AN/I is a good substitute. The relevant policy is NOT BURO. In this particular matter, a number of TPM's more questionable speedies have been deleted by Jimfbleak, so perhaps this would be a good place to discuss it . not as a dispute, but a problem. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From my experience, unless administrative action or some form of topic ban is likely, many people will not bother to discuss it here. So I'm not sure that's accurate. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here. I suppose there are three points. Firstly, the fact that an article is at AfD or prodded does not, I think, automatically preclude SD, the most obvious example being where the text is copyright. Secondly, I admit that on the windows article I may have been over zealous, I'll try to be more careful in future. Thirdly, I always respond to all but the most abusive postings on my talk page (or email) to explain why I have deleted an article, and to review my decision if necessary. What I cannot do is is get other editors to raise issues with me first, instead of going straight to this page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Then we should give 24 hour blocks to anyone who files an ANI without trying to resolve the issue directly with the other editor, and 12 hour ones for anyone who fails to notify a user they have reported :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• This discussion is the wrong way around. There's almost nothing on User talk:TenPoundHammer and lots of text on this noticeboard. It should be the converse. I say this as one of the participants in Project:Articles for deletion/Xargs. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There are several discussions on TPH's talk page related to inappropriate CSD, PROD and AFD nominations:
    • User talk:TenPoundHammer#speedy
    • User talk:TenPoundHammer#Inappropriate rationales in AfD Nominations
    • User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14#WP:PROD
    • etc...
  • —Ruud 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't the right place, we're being too hard on the user here. TPH's use of "filibustering" is particularly egregious, but really the time taken to put this all together (with diffs even) should be given a little more respect. And "Too long, Didn't read" is appalling. If you're not here to read and think a little bit before chipping in, then why are you here? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• ANI could be proper I guess... but TPH has such a huge list of edits it's pretty damn easy to cherry pick out a few CSDs and run with it. Is he being disruptive? Not from anything I've seen here. I don't agree with that speedy, or even an AfD (by someone else btw) in the examples, but that doesn't mean TPH is doing anything there that indicates the need for admin action. I suggest this conversation be closed, lest it become some proxy war over inclusionism/deletionism. Shadowjams (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

AIV backlog

Resolved

 – mostly caught up now Nobody Ent 13:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Who's watching WP:AIV?Jasper Deng (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Community ban for Papa Smooch

• Papa Smooch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The socks say it all. I was going to just tag it as de facto, but let's formalize it.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Also, is there any connection to Feathers Trial (talk · contribs)/Barackbush (talk · contribs)? HurricaneFanAlt ≈≈ (bad revert?) 16:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Abusively using this many accounts warrants a ban from the project. dci | TALK 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• I support this as a simple matter of principle. TheRealTeln (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Deluge

Hello. The article Pinn Panelle was nominated for speedy deletion. However, the talk page has been flooded by editors who are contesting the speedy deletion. I'm not sure that they're not socks, but would it be a better idea to post this as an AfD? dci | TALK 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Article is deleted and salted. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert requested on Template:Cleanup

Resolved

There is a consensus (Template_talk:Cleanup#Notification) to revert this edit on protected template, but we need uninvolved admin Bulwersator (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Bulwersator (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U deletion

Resolved

It seems to me that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RHaworth should be deleted seeing as it's been around since 17 Jan and hasn't been filled out or certified. Apologies if this isn't the correct place to leave such a request. Jenks24 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

possible violation of Wikipedia:Bot_policy specifically WP:MASSCREATION

Please see Special:Contributions/M.casanova mass creating film pages all with content directly copied from [25] with most having no indications of notability, other than inclusion in this particular database. Will notify right after this Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no violation, he is neither a bot nor is he creating copyright violations due to the disclaimer at the bottom "This work by FCAT Festival de Cine Africano de Tarifa is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." and he is crediting them in his creation of articles. I endorse his creation of articles on African films which are poorly covered, but I would like to see a few more sources adde dto them. I think a discussion would have been more productive first before a mass AFD you've now gone for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not claiming copyright violation, I saw the release. That being said, I do question the value of an article which is 100% copied from another site. We do not need to be a database of african films,- obviously such a database already exists to be copied from. We have had the discussion before regarding how automated one needs to be before even manual action is encroaching upon the masscreation policy. Regarding the discussion, it started somewwhat organically, as I was doing new page patrol, doing individual nominations. When I noticed a large number of similar articles, I moved to this venue. I think "mass delete" is somewhat of a judgement call considering the incredibly massive number of articles created by this user using this process. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

African films are very poorly covered on wikipedia. However many he creates its likely to still pale in comparison to our coverage of US/UK films. I believe he is addressing systemtic bias, but his articles ideally need another source or two to prove notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that any film which can have 2 or 3 sources found would meet the notability requirements (and I would perhaps allow for lesser sources considering average state of african press etc.) However, the systematic bias in this case I think is largely a reflection of systematic bias in the media. While lack of coverage of African films by the press and awards may certainly be a real issues, it cannot be wikipedias place to fix that issue. We have notability standards, content which does not meet those standards should not be in. In our earlier debates regarding your mass creation of articles, you used the argument that natural locations, villages, etc were inherently notable - an argument I reluctantly acceded to. However, we have very clear criteria of what makes a film notable, and if we ignore those criteria for this instance we might as well delete all such policies and let everyone greate an article about their high school band, or in the examples you provided in our earlier discussion - about every pokemon char, episode of American tv, or character etc, . Gaijin42 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember any previous discussion as its been a very long time since I mass created anything. I don't believe in inherent notability, but I believe certain traditionally encyclopedic topics almost always certainly meet requirements for an encyclopedia and the vast majority can be expanded and sourced, I have a 99.9% success rate with AFDs thrown at me and proved this. Films are not really traditional encyclopedic subjects so the notability at times may be questionable. I haven't researched the series of films the editor has created, but the screening at a major African festival at least is something in terms of assessing notability. I think you'll find a few of them maybe can be expanded using other sources. Why not ask the editor to try to expand a few with other sources?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is really an Admin issue (at least not anymore) but since this is the place designated for discussion, I'd like to echo Dr. Blofeld's suggestion that rather than lots of AfDs right now, a more constructive route here would be to withdraw the AfDs for the time being and meanwhile suggest to M.casanova that he might slow down a bit on the creation of new articles, and spend some of that time on additional sourcing for each article. I took a look at one of them, a Mozambican film, and I was finding some possible references in Portuguese, complicated further because the film seemed to have several different titles. It's unquestionably the case that African film is underdocumented, so I have to think that what M.casanova is trying to do here could be a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an admin issue... there's policy violation going on here... maybe no need for some sanction but it's appropriate at WP:AN. Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

These all look like valid articles in an area that's not very well covered. Endorse the point about slowing down and taking a bit more time to establish notability so we don't end back here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, slow down. Let's at least give a feigned tribute to the virtue of quality as a complement to quantity.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a mass creation policy and whether you wrote a perl script to do it or you're fast with copy-paste, this is in a semi-automated fashion and the bot policy should apply. We have that policy so that these sorts of mass creations are preemptively examined because when they're wrong (or even if they're right) they create more work and trouble for everybody else. This isn't a question of notability so much as it is having a workable system.

I'm not so sure that these creations deserve a block... although I do think there's some policy violation going on here. I also don't think Blofeld's response addresses the real issue. Even if this is an under-represented area of the encyclopedia, mass creations that are copied from a source or otherwise generated in some automated way, are semi-automated for purposes of the bot policy. The subsequent edits appear to be automated as well, though I'm not sure. Shadowjams (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I picked one of them, La Robe du temps, and pumped it up a bit. I did not find much critical commentary, but certainly it has been noted by various independent sources. My guess is that almost all of the films featured at the African Film Festival of Cordoba are in fact notable. The articles just need a bit of work. I fully concur with Arxiloxos - the AfD's should be cancelled, since they show lack of prior research. M.casanova should slow down a bit and improve the existing entries before making more, but no harm is being done. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage

Hey guys :). As previously mentioned in a few places, the Foundation has started work on our new patrolling software: New Page Triage. I'm posting updated specifications in a few hours, and I'd really advise everyone who is interested in page patrolling to head over to the talkpage, comment on the suggestions on the page already and the additional ideas the community has come up with.

We've also got an office hours session next Tuesday, the 13th, at 19:00 UTC (that's 12:00 PST, for the west-coast Americans around ;p). If you can make it, it's on IRC in #wikimedia-office. If you can't, drop me a line on my talkpage and I'm happy to send you the logs once we're done :). Regards, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)