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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

WikiGuide RfCs

Would an admin (or admins) close the following RfCs CSD criteria for new articles, being templated, and socialising on WP? Crossposted to WP:VPP. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure these RfC's should be "closed". I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I am raising the question. Not all RfC's are closed (I think) and not all RfC are necessarily looking for a GO/NOGO decision -- they are just that, requests for comments and conversation about a matter. In the case of Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing for instance, the proposal is

"Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Wikipedia's IRC channels."

It's quite possible that this is designed to foment further discussion that might lead to specific proposals for specific changes. If a person were to close this RfC with a result of "accepted", how exactly would the person then implement "Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing"? Changes to the WP:NOT page and other pages, writing a new policy, or what? Similarly, at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates, the proposal is

"When dealing with new users, we should discourage excessive templating and encourage more personal messages."

If a person were to close this RfC as "accepted", how would she then implement this? The proposal at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts is more specific and perhaps is amenable to a close. If closed as "accepted", though, implementation would require some changes to Twinkle as well as text changes at policy/procedure. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I think stuff like this needs more discussion, and if someone is going to close it, the close should mainly summarize the main points and arguments and not try to locate some consensus for something. –MuZemike 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Not every RFC asks for consensus; these seem more like organized discussions, and as such should be closed by summary and not by consensus. --Jayron32 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that the closes should be summaries of the above RfCs, rather than than implementations. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes a summing-up would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing remain open. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles

Per the request at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles#This RfC has officially "expired" -- could somebody please close it, would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles? Cunard (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The bot runs on a 30-day timer, simply it's impossible for a bot to figure out whether a discussion is resolved. Most editors 'forget' to remove the RFC tag when the resolve the question, and if we don't automatically remove tags at some point, then they'll stay 'open' for years. Most RFCs are actually resolved within a much shorter time, so 30 days is usually enough. However, if any RFC discussion is still active after 30 days, then you simply change the timestamp in the RFC to let the bot know that we're still talking about it. There is no magic 30-day timer on discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The page's history shows very little activity over the past week. Because over 30 days have passed, and because the discussion has become inactive, the RfC can be closed. A summary of the RfC will allow editors to know the level of support for the proposal. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for new Dispute Resolution process

On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.

Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from admins or from people experienced in policy development, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.

The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What's DR? Surely not Deletion Review? Nyttend (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR - Dispute Resolution. Rd232 ^talk 05:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an eminently serious proposal that appears to me to have been thought through with extraordinary care. We certainly need something to help deal with the massive problem it addresses. I'd strongly encourage others to review it carefully, i.e. with the attention it merits.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bearian's closure of James Middleton Afd

Resolved

 – Clearly a disruptive thread, disruptively re-opened by an editor who should be blocked for disruption should they reopen the thread. Take it to RFC/U or Arbcom if you think you're correct (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a disruptive way of closing this thread, just like the previous one.[1]. It was also an interesting idea to block the OP after all this involvement. Hans Adler 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Can I get some feedback on this exchange about this admin's recent closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James William Middleton. I am minded to take it to DRV, but I'd like further input as to whether people here really think that this admin is entitled to decline offering any actual details as to how he closed this Afd the way he did, ending the discussion after one reply with a simple "no". The only substantive info I received was that the Daily Mail is a "semi-reliable" source, whatever that might mean in terms of BLPs, and which is if you look at recent debates on Jimbo's talk page, pretty far from the current consensus. While DRV does exist to challenge closures, it's not there for admins to send people to automatically if they simply do not have the time or the inclination to justify closures at all. And I can guess just how such a filing would go - DRV is not AFD 2, DRV is not IDONTLIKETHERESULT, etc etc. If I did actually get some specific answers to the questions I raised, it's actually possible it wouldn't even need to go to DRV. But I find his conduct to be completely against the basic requirement for admins to communicate their logic as it relates to the specific decision, rather than simply repeating vauge assertions that he summarized the debate and linked to the (rather obvious) policies and guidelines at issue in the closure. Fair enough if he said 'this point outweighed that one', or 'user x made a particularly good point', or 'this argument wasn't relevant', then I'd have specific points to raise in the DRV if I disagreed, which is a hard enough venue as it is even when you do have tangible evidence of incorrect interpretation or flawed process, but I don't see how he's even come close to that by simply giving me a list of users he respects and suggesting that we could just wait a week or two and renominate (as if, you wouldn't be able to move for NOTAGAIN & NTEMP objections). While I have sympathy for his claims that he has more pressing matters to deal with in real life, this does not mean he can arrive at contentious Afds like this one, and do half the job. MickMacNee (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An opinion: a) the AfD shows Borderline notability; the article could possibly be fixed and improved, rather than deleted - despite some sources being less than reliable. I do suggest just waiting a month or so, re-evaluate if this is a notable enough topic (especially when wedding news has calmed down a bit); if not, AfD anew. Meanwhile, by all means remove poorly sourced info, and/or discuss on the talk page. b) I think the admin has already gone to considerable effort to try and explain their judgement call (even if you don't understand, or accept, their logic); and has also agreed to an voluntary two-week break from clsures at AfD (sic). I think the point has been made, and can't see anything productive from pursuing it (personal opinion) hence I'd not bother with DRV; WP:STICK and move along; accept it's borderline but tipped the 'wrong' way (in your opinion). If you cannot drop the stick, then DRV. At least the admin seems aware of the concern, and open to discussion, which is a Good Thing™  Chzz  ►  03:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

STICK? Including my Afd vote, this will be just my 4th post on the matter. Do you really think that's excessive for issues over the BLP policy and basic admin conduct? The admin is not open to discussion (2nd reply was "no"), and I cannot fathom at all how you think he has gone to "considerable effort" to explain this decision. He has linked to (clearly outdated) discussions on RSN (and rather than for example the specific wording of the RS policy), and didn't even bother to summarize them (many if not all don't even support his claim that they show the Daily Mail is semi-reliable, or even what he thinks that means for BLP usage). He has given me a list of users he trusts (why?). He has told me he linked to the policies of concern in the closure (for what purpose? my request for clarification was predicated on it, and doing that is not something admins should be looking for credit for, it should be considered basic good practice in any closure, the issue is his lack of willingness to outline how the Afd debate showed with a clear consensus that these policies/guidelines had been met). And he told me there's better sources out there (why? is this just a request that I just take it on trust? bearing in mind the supervote concern, he is unwilling to identify what evidence in the Afd supports this belief, suggesting to me at least it doesn't exist at all. If he had summarised the debate properly, he would have no trouble giving this sort of info barely a few hours later - it would have been quicker for him to recall that, than write about some of the other rather irrelevant stuff that he did). And I certainly don't see what relevance this two week break has on anything. And why is it down to me to now try and clean this article up? Have you seen the grief people are getting for trying to get the other articles up to a basic standard? And by basic I don't mean quality, I mean not libelous or damaging. Not to mention the long term problems saddled onto the site with people trying to add all sorts of crap into them on the basis, backed up by closures like these, that these articles merely exist not to be biographies reflecting the in depth coverage that is apparently just being assumed to exist, but to be holders for all 'coverage' out there, whatever it says and whoever published it (and they are tempted to add it because without it, the article looks completely empty, as the proper coverage isn't out there). Given that this is the real long term impact of closures like this on the site, and that there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd, I don't think my requests for clarification to the admin who calls it as "keep" (not no consensus or even merge, but keep) are remotely unreasonable or STICK like, or can just be ignored on the (completely false) assumption it would be remotely possible to delete the article in 2 months should no other in depth significant coverage come to light, or if nobody gets around to fixing what is already there. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"...there were very many people arguing for delete or merge in the Afd..." I think Bearian acknowledged this. In the close he states "While the arguments to merge are colorably good, there is no strong argument to delete outright," and "I'm going to go with a keep, but this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton." So basically he is saying that there is no consensus to delete outright (and I agree that there is no valid argument to at least turn this into a redirect, if not merge) and that keeping allows further discussion on whether to merge. Rlendog (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No, when an Afd is closed as keep, that is a declaration that the article is notable now, and forever more, unless there is a change in overall policy or consensus as to the whole concept of notability. That is per NTEMP and all the Afd closing instructions that I've ever seen. Where this has ever been deviated from as a general principle, those have been extreme exceptions, which this article would likely never fall into, unless of course the decision to keep it with large amounts of unreliable sourcing comes back to bite us on the ass. See Talk:Pippa Middleton#"Personal life" should be removed for an example of what can be concealed beneath the surface of these articles, when the Afd closer has never really had to show whether they really took a good look at the strength or clue of the various claims made about the sourcing that is either already in the article or is supposedly 'out there'. See WP:OTTO too for what might lie in wait if he isn't obliged to explain things like what "semi-reliable" means to him as far as the BLP policy goes and how it informed his closure, if the article never gets 'fixed' (i.e. stubbed in this case tbh). No, if the closer believes there was no consensus to delete or merge or keep, then unsurprisingly, the mandated closure is no consensus, which is still a default keep, but does not preclude further discussion without there needing to be any great change in policy. And while he may have sort of said he's OK with a merge discussion starting, if you close as "keep", then that's all that matters in the ensuing pile-on vote count - see Talk:Pippa Middleton again for a case in point (and to follow that bizarre example, Bearian would then be the one closing the merge proposal too!?!). "I'm going to go with a keep" is the only thing that would be recalled from the closure. That's why it is a fantasy for people to claim that closing as "keep" & suggesting an Afd in a few weeks, or a merge discussion on the talk page, is anything but pointless, both from a practical stand point and from a policy perspective. It's simply wrong. And if he meant it to be a keep, he should be able to explain why in real terms and with real reference to the actual debate. Anything else is also just wrong. You are admins, you weren't elected because you were super-beings, you were elected because you were trusted to make the right calls (wait) ... and you had the required temperament, ability and policy knowledge to be able to explain them to doubters in the way I've described. And you aren't super voters, period. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with the admin's conduct? They explained their reasoning, and based on the argument it's valid. Because they explained it well, why badger them? You don't think the person's notable, or that notability has not been established, WP:SOFIXIT, or AfD it again in a few months. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've laid out in detail what's wrong with his conduct, and how he hasn't explained his reasoning at all. Explaining isn't simple restatement and it isn't any of the other things he did either. And see above for my take on the ideas that it's my or any of the other delete voters responsibility to make this article appear notable if he thinks it maybe isn't but kept it anyway or thinks it is but cannot say how or why; and also on the issue of whether a further Afd has any chance of success or even legitimacy in current policy or practice. These are all conduct issues as regards the role and responsibility of an Afd closer. MickMacNee (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would say no consensus was the correct closure for that AFD. As Mick says closing it as keep gives weight to its existence forevermore and a DRV to move it from keep to no consensus seems like an excessive waste of time, so unless the admin is willing to re-close we are stuck with it as keep. Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure there will be some BLP or pokemon pages somewhere which had AfDs closed as "Keep" in the dim dark past and deleted in subsequent AfDs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and it may get merged at some point when the issue is forgotten in a few months - I was laughing about the DYK it was on the front page with the hilarious factoid - . that James Middleton, the brother of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, baked 21 cakes for HELLO! magazine's 21st birthday? - Thats not even worthy of inclusion in the article never mind a DYK on the front page. The keep close was the death knell for discussion to merge - there were around fifteen clear votes for merge. No worries the wheels aren't dropping off but administrators need to take more time in closing and throw out any - I like it keep comment unsupported in policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I see that's up on the Main Page right now. I wonder how long it will take an admin to notice that the hook is cited to a Daily Mail "story" with the headline "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". Jesus wept. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh for f***s sake, what next? Why are we putting brainless tabloid trivia like that into DYK? Is someone trying to make a point, or merely exhibiting gross stupidity? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the person who filed the DYK is also the person who created the article and argued in the Afd the the subject was "getting coverage for his business activities years ago" and had "notability in spades". He also happens to be one of the closing admin's 'trusted users'. He selected a Daily Mail source for a front page DYK hook, and the closing admin has stated he thinks the paper is "semi-reliable", whatever that means. Maybe that ultimately was the source of this failure. Who knows. Who cares. Not many by the looks of it. As you see, I remain unable to figure out much more about what went into this closure at this stage, or find anyone who thinks its remotely odd that I can't. Bearian has just pinged me on my talk, so maybe he's more willing to explain his logic now that he's seen it's immediate consequences. We'll see. MickMacNee (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you mean User:Colonel Warden. (Grin) Well, he's even more of an inclusionist than I am. I just said (a) I respect the Col. as an editor, and (b) that the consensus appeared to be that the article he created be kept. I never wrote that I like Middleton, nor that I agree to keep it. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Please read WP:NOTBATTLE. Bearian (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:ADMIN and WP:AFD. Also, get a WP:CLUE, and realise that I'm not interested in hearing a restatement of what you thought the consensus was, I already know that, I want to hear some sort of evidence that you know what you're doing when you close an Afd, that you know what you're talking about when you refer to policies and guidelines like BLP, RS, and BIO, and I would like some indication that you even read the debate for you to have been able to come to the conclusion you did. As you are required to do if you want to call yourself an admin. I'm not battling here, the only one battening down the hatches and playing a game of escape and evasion is you. The only one giving out the impression that they will do anything and everything except give straight answers to straight questions, is you. A recognition of your culpability in placing a massive BLP violation on the front page for 6 hours might also help. MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• A lot was said but when one boils it down, it split 30 Keep, 15 Merge and 22 Delete. There was therefore no consensus to delete. Bearian provided a reasoning in his close which was more than many closers do and has responded politely to further inquiries. Even MickMacNee seems to recognise that the close would stand up at DRV. Is there a point to this? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you remember that consensus isn't supposed to derive from a vote. I didn't vote once in that thread, but I simply raised points and asked people to answer. To me, all too often the people who simply toss in "Keep - per Editor1" or "Delete - per Editor2" are really doing next to nothing. The point of AfD is to identify areas that need substantial improvement or make the article invalid somehow. If those areas are valid and not addressed, then why should such an article be allowed to stay? And if they are addressed, why should an article be removed? THAT is what really matters, not a vote. -- Avanu (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, taking a look at many of those Keep and Delete votes just now, a lot of the discussion was improperly focused on notability (which he has in spades) and not on inherited notability, which was the proper concern (and the one identified in the deletion request initially). Since most of the commenters went right off track from the get-go, a neutral observer could conclude that most the debate was largely noise. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, another way to look at the discussion (if you like that vote perspective) is 30 - Keep in place, 37 - Content does not belong in this place. There are lots of ways to look at it, and simply declaring consensus in this case might have been premature, also I notice that Bearian made no mention of the 3 day lock on the article, so who knows if that was considered when choosing a day to close. Incidentally, I don't mind the outcome either way, but we need to be focused on good arguments, not emotional ones. -- Avanu (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Where did I way it wouldn't stand up to DRV? And why are you remotely pretending that this should have been a vote count? To hide the fact you made claims in the Afd that don't stand up, that needed an admin like this to be counted (infact, shit, we don't even know if he even counted your opinion or gave it any weight, such is his complete evasion here). MickMacNee (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the closure of this section by BWilkins, who's already stated a position and clearly thinks I shouldn't be asking questions of an "an admin who actually does work" (yes, and the issue is the quality of it). Leave it as is. If nobody else comments, and Bearian refuses to do or say anything else, then I'll see where that leaves me. Never mind Rfc/U, I think the unanswered concerns here are an arbcom issue frankly, there's some very basic principles that need to be reinforced here, or confirmed as no longer having any meaning. And DRV? Sure, maybe that will end in a result that can turn back time and erase the BLP violation from the Main Page. I can't say I'm enthusiastic for that, not least as I'm not a fucking retard, and know exactly what would happen if I turned up at DRV with what everyody will claim is just a dislike fo the outcome. I cannot dislike something I haven't even heard an explanation of yet frankly. What the hell would I even be able to say, other than he refuses to explain the decision at all? Someone please show me where he has explained the decision at all on which I can make a judgement as to the correctness of his closure. I'm not kidding when I say the only thing I've learned in these exhanges with him is that he considers the Daily Mail semi-reliable, yet how that related to the Afd I cannot even say. I don't know if he classed it as part of the SIGCOV, I still know fuck all about his logic process frankly, I could just as easily go to DRV and allege he's a personal friend of James Middleton for all the good such vague suspicions will do. Perhaps Bearian knows this and is banking on it. It's been alleged that he's an inclusionist by others, and he's not leaving me with anything to think that he isn't, with his continued refusals. Sure, I could write a whole detailed rationale stating my suspicions of what's occured here, but why should I have to do that when I can pretty much guarantee the first vote be from someone who will condemn me for coming to DRv with nothign but ABF, and thus won't even bother to read it, or if they do, will ignore it and endorse the closure on some complete irrelevance like the vote count or the "massive coverage". Fuck...that...shit. I'm seeking clueful input on an admins conduct and this is the admin's board. Just as Bearian has a right not to be suspected of being an inclusionist who will simply 'intepret' policies like BLP and SIGCOV to that end, he's also obliged to give others factual information about his thought process in specific situations and in judging real discussion threads discussing real cases, so that others can judge his calls of consensus fairly and objectively. I'm fucking disgusted frankly that these legitimate concerns founded on some very core principles like BLP are dismissed as "whining" by BWilkins. Not to mention the Bearian himself has said he thinks there's a 1 in 3 chance this whole complaint was a "joke". Unbelievable. When issues like basic editors considering the likes of the Daily Mail as a source at all, let alone evidence of coverage, are being said by Jimbo to be beliefs worthy of immmediate removal of rights, then this is not going to fly as "resolution". I'm not eating this sort of shit from someone who's done the exact same thing Bearian did and has a clear admiration of him, and presumes that having a bit means you don't have any obligation to explain your decisions as regards the specific issues and policies, and asserting that simple restatement is enough. It's not. MickMacNee (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I very much see this as an issue by which you, MickMacNee, are apparently unable to be satisfied by the fact that an AfD was closed with a result which you did not agree with and with a rationale that you think is insufficient. While that is your perogative, it is a concern that you are seemingly incapable of understanding that most of the community - those minded to comment, anyway - do not share your concerns. While you are a well regarded contributor to the project you are not the community, or even a spokesperson for part of it - you are just one account; you have made your point, and it is not one that most feel should result in either an overturning of the decision at AfD nor result in an examination of the closing admins ability to continue to use the flags. Time to let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that's what's going on here then I feel sorry for you. I hope everyone who comes across admins like you and Bearian who feel this way, finds nothing but happiness and joy at being told that they clearly simply 'dislike' whatever it is they are disputing, and take the assertion that the are presumably just too thick to be given even the most basic of respect of an actual explanation that they clearly wouldn't understand, or otherwise are too insignificant as just one man to even deserve, in the heartfelt and collaborative manner it is surely delivered in. You can be happy with the outcome of his actions all you like, but please don't pretend to me you have the slightest idea how he came to the decision. If you think you do, you're fooling yourself. Try it - how about you draft a detailed breakdown of how you would justify the closure in policy, based on the the arguments & evidence that were actually made, and other admins can do the same. If all your drafts even remotely match on the same basic themes, enough to be called a clear keep, and if you can manage to get one out of Bearian, they match his too, then you can lord it over me all you like. Until then, just don't patronise me please. There's admins here who could have just as easily closed that as having no strong arguments to keep, that nobody offered any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. You will presumably think that's nonsense, a completely unjustifiable position, but the issue is your belief that just calling it nonsense or simply a 'dislike' is enough to prove your case, and your belief that others couldn't possibly see the reverse. It's not as bad as claiming a divine right, but it's getting there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"You ever take that test yourself, Mr Deckard?" You miss my point - most everyone else has no issues with the close rationale. You do. That is fine. What is not fine is that you feel everyone should have the same issues with it as you do, and you will not stop pestering this board until you get a rationale that satisfies you (the exception) or everyone else agrees with your viewpoint on the one given. Nothing to do with your perceived deficiencies in the AfD close or the rationale given, but with your conduct and attitude. You are unprepared to accept consensus, which is far more contrary to the project ethos than any "questionable" action by some admin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC) ps. Why on Earth would I want to "lord it over you"? I am quite insulted to be compared to a bunch of indentured sheep stealers...

You're misrepresenting me completely tbh. I've found an example of what I consider to be a good close on a very related article, and given it below. Perhaps you should start by telling me how I as a mere single user should not reasonably expect that same standard of close in this instance, before you start telling me I have a bad attitude or am just some bizarre exception. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You have found a close which you agree with, thus you term it "good". The one by Bearian you disagree with, which you likely would call "bad" - although other people think it good. I suspect that if some of those people who call Bearian's close good also agree with the example below that you would not be able to comprehend why. Until you are familiar with the concept that two different people may review the same or similar issues and come honestly to different conclusions, and neither are wrong to do so, then it is pointless continuing this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm realy getting tired of your attempts to paint me as some thick twat who cannot tell the difference between a closure I agree with and a closure I think is handled correctly. If these concepts really are one and the same to you, it's your issue, not mine. Your the one theoretically trusted to be able to close an Afd a way you don't personally like, if it was the correct outcome according to a clueful reading of the debate against policy. You're also trusted to be able to explain how it was a clueful reading if someone challenges it against their honest opinion that it wasn't. You seem to think the former can never happen, and the latter is just an irrelevance. On Wikipedia, it's not true that both can be right. Proper objective analysis will either prove one right or the other. There are few if any situtions where these sorts of disagreements can actually result in a true constitutional crisis causing 50/50 correct answer. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• I endorse closure of this string. There's simply nothing here that I can see that warrants its continued presence, despite the detailed postings.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
• Could someone please remind Mick not to use f-words? That is annoying. Adornix (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Another closure, for comparison

This closure of the related family Afd is an example of what I consider is an admin properly explaining his closure with respect to the actual arguments made in the debate, and how they stood in policy.

There is enough context specific detail in that closure for people to know exactly what he did and did not consider relevant, and how he deliberated over the rest. He has a clearly stated position on each major thread and theme of the debate as regards their policy compliance or weight, without resorting to pointlessly vague generalities. It's not perfect (it never hurts to name and shame the people simply throwing out JN/JNN arguments for example, but there's equally no doubt he didn't give them any consideration whatsoever), but it's good nonetheless.

He's also quite rightly dismissed the argument made by Colonel Warden that there was some 'black sheep' clause in BLP that could be invoked here (a complete irony given he was the person who selected the DYK hook above). That reassures me that he's fully familiar with that particular policy, and has not taken anybody's argument as read.

People who might want to disagree with that closure can clearly do so on specific grounds, and if still not satisfied, they will have a concrete stance with which to open a DRV, giving them at least a chance of an actual review occuring, rather than a tedious re-run of the Afd. Even if the admin completely refused to expand on his rationale on request, which I sincerely doubt given he clearly gave it a lot of thought, the fact that the close is so detailed straight out of the box means the DRV would not simply be a complete farce with people lazily claiming the filer clearly simply 'didn't like' the close.

I have asked nothing of Bearian than to do the same for his closure, which by comparison is so vauge it could almost be transplanted to many other Afd's on BLPs who get 'coverage'. So, what's the hold up here? Why am I being fobbed off as if I'm a lunatic, and my requests were completely out of the ordinary, not something any sane admin would ever do, or even believe was good practice. Is this admin just being too accommodating or over-eager, or is he actually following the guidance you are all issued with once you've been deemed to be cluefull & trustworthy enough to have the responsibility of closing Afds. MickMacNee (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

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

MickMacNee blocked

Unfortunately the WP:DISRUPT, WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, and WP:SPIDERMAN through this entire process, especially this last post on his talkpage has led to a 2 week block. The length of time is due to past entries in the block log. Comments are welcome. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks? That seems excessive, given that the last block that wasn't overturned was 24 hours and that was nearly a year ago. Besides the duaration, I don't think the block is warranted. It's not preventing any imminent disruption and while he was obviously frustrated in that post, I don't see anything rising to the elvel of a personal attack and at least part of it was a valid point. Suggest unblocking or at the very least a reduction of the duration to be more proportionate to the "offence" and the most recent block that wasn't reversed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Bad" block, HJ? More like awful block. Two weeks is ridiculous for that. The block in principle, yes, good block. The actual carrying out of it? Awful. Reduce to 24 hours, as is the standard NPA block, please. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thirded; 24 hours seems appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Object. Sure, easy to support this because it is Mick and he's saying "fuck" a lot and he won't let the issue go - and that becomes annoying. But it takes at least two people to carry on an argument, and it only carries on if people feel the need to respond. The post of Bearian's he was responding to was outragious. An admin he was complaining about (albeit without much reason imho) told him not to reopen a thread on that same admin (COI) and then shouted at him because "non admins can't do that". Berian needs to grow a thicker skin and stop playing God. Of course a non-admin can open an ANI thread. This is premature and unnecessary block--Scott Mac 16:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with Scott. A two week block for disagreeing with an admin is ridiculous, and just reinforces the us-and-them stereotype we're doing our damnedest to get rid of. – iridescent 17:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• As someone who rarely agrees with him on anything, I think the block was over the top. Reduce to 24 hours. RxS (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bearian showed very poor judgement in an AfD and then became very defensive about it, apparently trying to stay as vague as possible on all points that could lead to overturning it at DRV. It's absolutely clear why MickMacNee was concerned and wouldn't let this go. Now this edit by Bearian shows that he believes that his formal admin state gives him certain extra rights that in reality are tied to cluefulness and good sense (which he appears to lack, judging from this incident). It's also an explicit invitation for MickMacNee to insult him, apart from the obvious baiting inherent in the attitude. Then, after the predictable reaction – on MMN's own talk page, where we are generally quite lenient – an involved admin reacted with a draconian block. Bwilkins needs to undo this pronto with an apology. Hans Adler 17:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the record, after reading that diff I've posted a message to Bearian about it and asked him to retract that ridiculous claim. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Reduced

I've reduced to 24 hours. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus that two weeks is ridiculously long. I've left the 24-hour block in place for the "civility" element; while I personally disagree with applying the civility policy when a user is expressing stress, rather than clearly setting out to be offensive, I nonetheless can see that most people feel that this kind of block is valid. Note that this amendment is in a personal and not an Arbcom capacity. – iridescent 17:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged, and no issues with the reduction: it's easier to reduce than to increase. I was merely going on the concept of escalating blocks, and acted accordingly. Cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I think MMN has really pushed it in terms of WP:CIVIL (especially in light of his RFC/U) I concur with the reduced block. Personally would have gone for 48 hours though--Cailil ^talk 17:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• I am glad the block has been reduced, as I feel that these types of sanctions are simply signposts of the communities disagreement with MickMacNee's conduct rather than a meaningful way of moderating same. Whatever period of sanction, I would suggest that the same behaviours would restart at their expiry. I suspect that it will require an ArbCom case to properly put in place measures to resolve these issues, and it will be MickMacNee's own actions that will provide that opportunity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Refusing to drop the stick and saying "fuck" a lot is about all tha Mick is guilty of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• In part I disagree in turn, since I believe the failure to drop the stick is a symptom of the underlying malady of MickMacNee being incapable of accepting a viewpoint contrary to his own. Of itself that may not be an issue, even though it flies in the face of WP:Consensus, but it is when it becomes disruptive - as it did above. Much like any purported failure by Bearian in the closing of the AfD, it is not an issue if there is no pattern or perceived habit - but there is a perhaps unfortunate perception that MickMacNee is party to frequent issues brought to the Admin boards. As for the swearing, though, I don't give a shit. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

...as the kids today would say: "fuckin-A, dude!" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the kids in the 80's, today they might say "bangin'" or "kickass". -- Avanu (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think he's incapable of accepting views that aren't his own. I defend him a lot in these boards because for some reason or another I 'get' Mick. I can't even put my finger on what about it it is, but I have a feeling I think in much the same fashion he does. It helps to know that while it seems personal its really not. He doesn't drag up the past unless others are, or if he really does believe theres a systemic issue. And if you speak cluefully about how his behavior in whatever circumstance is actually detrimental (beyond just 'i dont like it') he is more then capable of acknowledging it. See the most recent section on my talkpage for an example him taking advice and backing away. Mick just... doesn't suffer what he sees as bullshit. It's not so much a 'fuck you' but a 'I dont have time or energy for this shit'. Or at least thats what I see. -- ۩ Mask 10:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Flexibility

Wouldn't it have just been simpler to address the concerns that the editor raised by simply having another admin reopen the AfD and then reclose it with some further rationale? I see a lot of willingness to say "well, i agree, but what can you do?" It seems much simpler to just do it over, but correctly, than to argue about it so much. It was kind of clear from the AfD thread that there wasn't real consensus, so policy says to leave it running or relist it until the consensus becomes clear. It just seems a bit unflexible to acknowledge something that is a legitimate concern just because something is a "done deal". Personally, I took no strong position in the AfD, because I was interested in seeing if people would provide encyclopedic rationale if encouraged to do so. The admin closer did not acknowledge the concerns raised by the AfD nominator at all, but went off track, like many in the discussion to general notability, which was never in question. So instead of us being flexible, we get hard-headed and an editor loses patience. Not a pretty outcome. -- Avanu (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD isn't about consensus building (or voting). It's about laying out a case for or against deletion and then allowing an administrator to review the case and make a determination based upon its merits. Thus, all the Me Too "votes" are pretty much worthless and the keep/delete notes with their unique rationale's are what matter. This helps mitigate the effects of canvassing, puppets, and the like. Rklawton (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. OK, so in this case, did the admin review the rationale? It doesn't appear he did. Like I said, a LOT of the editors got sidetracked with the General Notability Guideline, when that wasn't the question. -- Avanu (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, before I get accused of actually caring whether this article lives or dies, my point is simply that it might save drama if even a minor issue is raised, that it just be done over, and done closer to guidelines. Not my dog in this fight, I'm fine either way, just suggesting alternatives. -- Avanu (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

• comment and people wonder why some folks have this "admin vs. editor" mentality? Pro-tip: Check your ego at the door, and just edit in a way to improve the damn pedia. — Ched :  ?  16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Ched. But the problem is there are too many people who can't agree on what an improvement is. BarkingMoon (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

RfCs needing closure

As thirty days have passed and discussion has died down at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient and Should passing WP:RFA be a prerequisite for being granted CU or OS rights ?, they would seem ripe for closure. A summary of what consensus if any was achieved and what technical or policy changes if any are justified would be helpful. Thanks, Skomorokh 18:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Happy-melon (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient, and thank you, ErrantX (talk · contribs) for closing Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Should passing WP:RFA be a prerequisite for being granted CU or OS rights ?. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I accused of Vandalism?

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Nick-D (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Where do I report obvious hoaxes at? Can you ban the user?

There is a hoax article at The Death of Small Wonders created by an editor with no other edits ever. The references mentioned are fake, none of them actually existing. The only mention of the book anywhere is on a forum where the creator says he made it for laughs. Where do I report hoaxes at so you can ban the user before he makes more of them? Or is making a hoax page an offense you can ban someone for? I added the hoax tag to the article already. Does this automatically put it on a page somewhere listing reported hoaxes for an administrator to look over the details and issue out punishments to those who do this? Is there a page somewhere I should post this at? Dream Focus 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

A ban, or even a short-term block, seems like overkill here for a first offense. Deleting the article, warning the authors, and moving on seems adequate here. VQuakr (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts indefinitely, and such an action is not overkill at all in my mind. I have given the author notice that it is an indefinite block and not an infinite one, and told how to go about being unblocked if he should wish to do so. NW (Talk) 05:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Strange, though the indef tag is on his talk page, Bennett23's block log is empty. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also take a look at User:Yonyonsonwisconsin's contributions to the article. He might have been trying to throw us off the track by vandalizing the article and hoping we would miss that it was complete weapons grade bullshit. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, I actually forgot to block Bennett. Now fixed. Also, who knows, maybe) Yonyonson was merely trying to remove a hoax in the best way he knew how. It sounds unlikely, but it is a possibility. NW (Talk) 15:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NW; hoaxes are basically vandalism, so an editor whose only contributions are to post hoaxes should be considered a vandalism only account and be blocked accordingly. I've indef blocked several editors for editing only (or mainly) to create hoaxes. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to treat all hoaxes as vandalism of the sort that should be blockable, go try a rfc(policy) for it. DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Err, why? The current policy says the following is a form of vandalism: "Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. Includes blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), blatant POV pushes, hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages." As far back as 2006 there was a clause in the policy that said "Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr. Pelican Shit.) A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia." Indeed, five years ago, we already had a content guideline about that very matter that stated "Hoaxes in Wikipedia are considered vandalism, and perpetrators of a hoax are subject to blocking and banning." That wording is still in the guideline. NW (Talk) 02:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hoaxes are vandalism, but we should treat it similar to other vandndalism, ie warn, and escalate warnings, prior to blocking. We should not be blocking on the first edit, unless there is other suggestions of a sock or something in addition to hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Good God why? Someone who has gone to the trouble of figuring out how to create an account, and how to create a new article, only to then deliberately perpetrate a hoax is not someone whose long-term goals are for the betterment of the project. Block 'em, let 'em go with the standard offer if you're feeling particularly generous I guess, but the point is if they have demonstrated their only purpose is to fuck around there is no reason why they should retain editing privileges for any longer than it takes an admin to click the block button. → ROUX ₪ 02:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to, sure. But warning has never been a prerequisite for blocking. NW (Talk) 02:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am worried how "Violence begets violence" and a blocked user might "up his game" if challenged. Instead, I wonder if a user could be templated with:

The article you wrote was considered a hoax, to be deleted, because Wikipedia strives to present serious topics. If you prefer to write humorous articles, there are other websites (such as Uncyclopedia) which would welcome a person with your interests and talents. Otherwise, articles written here should focus on simple sourced facts, which might seem boring to someone with your background.

Such a milder response might seem less hateful, as a first option, and by carefully crafting a templated-message, perhaps the "fun" can be taken out of wiki-outlaw behavior. Try to deflect trouble, initially, without instantly escalating the levels of hostility. I am trying to understand why people hate Wikipedia and why many admins are so instantly hostile, and soon burn out in disgust. The world view of WP is the aggregate of hostile experiences, trying to prevent junk articles, while admins are told to defend the Pippapedia of semi-notable cruft topics. Is it really worth being so hostile about this project? --Wikid77 04:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm with Roux on this. Someone who goes to those lengths to vandalize the encyclopedia (and there's no way a hoax which decreases the project's reliability can be seen as anything but vandalism), should be blocked. Then if they have a change of heart and want to participate constructively, we can evaluate that, but the onus is on them. Just because we're the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" doesn't mean we have to open the doors to those who want to abuse us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Such actions to indef people is the reason I left. As in before this time, that used to not happen. Anyway, off topic, but can you look at the article IEEE 1394? It says PCI is serial... LOL. It is parallel communication! --Hinata talk 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism-only accounts are routinely blocked. Hoaxes are a form of vandalism per our policy. Personally, I find hoaxes to be a particularly destructive form of vandalism, because they are sometimes more difficult to spot, and can often take more time and effort to identify than when someone replaces the content of an article with the word "penis". -- Atama頭 19:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment most hoaxes are playful. The appropriate response is to remove , warn, and redirect the user to more useful things here. Blocking is a last resort to prevent further damage. In some cases, including negative BLP, the possibility of further damage may be so great that a block is warranted--but unless really malicious, to the level of libel, all that is needed is a sufficient block to prevent its re-placement. (Other forms of vandalism also,; most of it is intended to damage only in a rather technical sense, and can be dealt with adequately with a final warning.) Now, in this particular case , the user seemed to be rather persistent about the article, replacing it when stubbified and challenged. That's enough reason for a block, a block long enough to bring the activity to a halt, perhaps a week or two. I can see little reason going to an indefinite block for playing. We want to encourage the user r to come and do something useful. Only those users who show that they never will do so are appropriate for an indefinite block. Even if technically permitted by the current wording, an admin always has a range of remedies, and using this one was poor judgment. what is slowly killing Wikipedia is not a flood of hoaxes. It is failure to replace the people who leave, and all of our actions should be judged primarily on the point of whether they will encourage or discourage new users. No one is saying that permitting hoaxes would encourage useful new users, but warning the perpetrators in a friendly way might do so. What I think we might want to have is some sort of review for all indefinite blocks, with the admin required to specifically state why a short block would not be sufficient, rather than the user needing to appeal. sort of like the Real World mandatory appeal of death sentences. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • When a reader accesses a Wikipedia article and sees "penis", "poop" or "John is gay" style vandalism, most of them are going to understand that it's not there deliberately, and that it's the result of someone vandalising the page. It may be annoying, but it's fairly easily ignored. When the reader accesses a hoax article, especially a well-done one, their ability to tell that it's a hoax will depend on their familiarity with the general subject matter, and some will not realize that they're being hoaxed. This is much more damaging to the encyclopedia than poop/penis/gay vandalism, because it strikes us at one of our most vulnerable weak spots: our reputation for reliability.

    Let's face it, most people don't really think we're all that reliable, they use the encyclopedia because it's convenient and easily accessible, but they take much of what they read with a grain of salt. The only way to overcome that is to make sure that our articles are as accurate and reliable as we can make them, and our basic policies are in place to help make that happen. Anything which works against that goal is dangeorus, and something that is directly aimed at undermining that is serious business.

    Hoaxes can be amusing, those that are well-done can be admired for the craftsmanship that goes into them, but they're not really funny in regard to the damage they do to us, and they need to be dealt with harshly. For a "penis" vandal to be indef-blocked while a hoaxer is patted on the head and urged to play nicer is completely the reverse of what should happen, based on the damage it does to us.

    It ain't 2005 anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Bots and ipblock-exempt

Since bug 28914 was fixed today I removed all bots (except User:Thehelpfulbot) from 'IP block exempt' usergroup. Bots only need to added to this usergroup if they are caught in torblocks like Thehelpfulbot. Ruslik_Zero 08:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Tobiby

Hi.

Tobiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Moved Azerbaijan (Iran) to "Kharbayejan" [2]. Meaning of "Khar" is "donkey". The word that Fars nationalist use for call down Azerbaijani Turk people. Please attention and delete the "Kharbayejan" word. Thanks --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, this was back in January. Acting on this matter now would be, if you pardon the expression, closing the stable door after the beast of burden had gone. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This maybe repeat and it is not usefull for wikipedia! --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Not much we can do now, but I have move protected the page at admin level, so there won't be a repeat of the offence. Mjroots (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Notability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wrong venue. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Hello. Does being notable in Wiki of another language justify notability in all other Wiki languages? For example, there is an article in English Wiki about Rothschild Boulevard, but there is absolutely no news coverage about this Boulevard in Farsi sources. Can I still write the Farsi article on the basis that English Wiki finds this Boulevard notable?Kazemita1 (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's for the editors at Farsi wikipedia to decide. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Suppose there is this controversial newsletter named "Ya Letharat" written in Farsi. You can find many articles in independent newspapers talking about it IN FARSI. Can I call it notable in English Wikipedia and write an article about it?Kazemita1 (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is not an issue requiring administrator input. Please try asking at the village pump. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 07:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Final helpful note

The Wikipedia page on Identifying Reliable Sources makes no mention at all of what languages are required, so I would assume notability would be the same no matter what language it is in. HOWEVER, there is still the issue of Verifiability. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." If no one else can read it, it would be harder to have other editors agree with you that it is in fact a reliable source. Just offering helpful tips. -- Avanu (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's some detailed advice on this is at WP:NONENG. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is still not an issue requiring administrator input, but well done for chit-chatting here anyway. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Redirect

Please delete this unwise redirect on Princely State of Bhopal article to Bhopal State. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done (I have reverted your move, I suppose that was what you wanted?) Fram (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 09:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone feeling scholarly?

Resolved

 – lifebaka has obliged. Skomorokh 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi all. Anyone feel like closing an AfD that will probably require more time than is typical to make sense of? Feel free to delete this request if it's in any way improper. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Change conditions of topic ban

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

---

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=429397010#Topic_ban, I would like to change the restriction of the topic band to "shady" areas of non-frees (ie Doctor Who episodes/TV episodes) while allowing me to upload/update software screenshots (like Norton AntiVirus), which ARE clear cut cases. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Topic ban has literally only just been passed, and he already wants to give the community a big slap in the face by ignoring consensus? This is fast descending into a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am acepting the consensus, but trying to change the conditions a little. If not, eh no big deal. BTW how to request non-free image uploads? I believe that I understand the NFCC enough to know that softwares are clear cut cases. How about just to update EXISTING non-free images ie Norton Internet Security screenshots. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:FFU --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

My case: I have been uploading software screenshots for a long time without any cases. I believe those are clearcut "significant" non-frees. As per sven_manguard, I will resize all screenshots to below 400px (largest size) and no longer use the {{own}} tag, cause I understand that the own template is used for images that I own. Also, I am the ONLY one updating the Norton Internet Security article and many of the non-famous software articles. Just requesting to update their screenshots to the latest versions ie NIS11 to NIS12. Also btw, this doesn't restrict free image ie images I took, to commons, does it? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The ban is on non-free images, so you can still upload to Commons. 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

And since the ban was enacted on WP:AN/I today, asking for a relaxation of the ban on WP:AN does seem a bit like forum-shopping, especially considering this. May I ask if there are any other venues where you're bringing this up? 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to express fusturation somewhere (that was the only one, plus wanted to test out the liquid thread system, and I can't just type in gibberish! Cause if I type here, you guys might pound on me. Also, sorry for the wrong thread. I got confused AN with ANI :/. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Posting here is "my fault" - WP:UNBAN points to WP:AN as the forum to use, and when he asked for clarification on my talk page I pointed him here (on the, possibly flawed, belief that it wouldn't appear here instantly...) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose(ecs) No way, at least wait one hour before you start trying to change the terms of your ban. I don't believe obviously free images, like those in your gallery, are affected. Incidently are attribution boiler plates like the one here [3] permitted by policy? (sorry if thats a stupid question) Bob House 884 (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA license allows the author to specify how they are attributed, so they are fine, yes --Errant ^(chat!) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? If you are talking about trains, I assume yes (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Docklands_Light_Railway_type_B2K). If you are talking about custom template, I think yes cause other users have used it. Also, I have asked time and time again to admins and editors at the #wikipedia-en-help #wikipedia-en-help and the said its ok. In fact, that template, was modified from a previous version as per their suggestion. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well under the terms of the CC/GNU licenses, the author is allowed to require attribution in whatever means they like, but pretty much everywhere on WM you edit it says that "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." so I'm interested to know whether your permitted to impose your own, more restrictive, terms on your contributions (or indeed if images are considered a special case). I expect somebody has a one-word answer. (note, it appears that the question I was answering appears to have been changed while I answered it)Bob House 884 (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)Also, I have asked time and time again to admins and editors at the #wikipedia-en-help #wikipedia-en-help and the said its ok. In fact, that template, was modified from a previous version as per their suggestion. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Possible history merge needed

User:Tyw7 just made a (quite unwanted) copy-and-paste move of Shake It Up (TV series) to Shake It Up, which used to be the article for The Cars album (and should remain so, at least pending an RM discussion). There are now two pages for the TV series (one with a broken history). Can an admin restore these pages to where they were and help clean up the mess in the page histories? Tyw7 has been notified of this discussion. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This right off the back of the section directly above this and a (unrelated) topic ban just being passed at ANI? Can anyone say competence is an issue here? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I've sorted it out. Tyw7's edits were just to copy/paste the article so are best just deleted. It doesn't bode well for him, although copy/paste moving is common for inexperience users it is a bit of a Facepalm moment coming straight out of his image problems. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup, Errant. 28bytes (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I moved because I thought that article would be of more relevence to today's readers (the latter is a Disney Channel show). Didn't expect for that much impact. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 15:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like my "proceed with caution" suggestion yesterday is not being heeded. So I want to make one last suggestion. Please sign up for the WP:MENTOR program ASAP. Your heart may be in the right place but you careening from problem to problem like a bull in a china shop and a possible block is on the horizon due to the aforementioned competency issues. MarnetteD | Talk 16:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I think a mentor is Tyw7's best hope for avoiding an indef competence block. 28bytes (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How to sign up? Didn't see any "apply" link. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Fetchcomms mentioned in the AN/I thread that he'd been interacting with you on and off for the past year, maybe he'd be willing to help out. 28bytes (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No he was not. I have asked Sven regarding the NFCC and the only case I believe I've interacted with Fletchcom is when I've encountered problems with areas he worked with. --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 16:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your request for instructions on how to complete complex moves: leave that to admins. You need to focus on your basic skills first. Note to everyone: Tyw7 has been warned to not move articles in future and to never do another copy/paste move again. Rklawton (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

General RS question

Is Picasaweb considered a usable source? The article Otto Eppers contains circa-1920s historical images from this Picasaweb page, which may not be generally available elsewhere. I did a "picasaweb" search through the noticeboard, but found nothing applicable. Thanks for any help or guidance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You may find a better response at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The actual source in this case is the QSL card, images of which are hosted on the Picasaweb website. The QSL cards themselves are primary sources, as they were published by the subject. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In the News FYI

Just a pointer to this subsection regarding ITN and possible votestacking. I'm not sure how visible that talk page is, so I'm cross-posting here. TNXMan 19:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow... I've worked with BabbaQ and while we've occasionally disagreed on inclusion criteria he seemed a sound guy :( That's disappointing to see. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD closure tool

FYI - I have created a new tool which allows people to track statistics related to an admin's AfD closures. You might be interested to check it out at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/afdadminstats.html There is also a tool for tracking a user's AfD vote statistics at http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/afdstats.html Feel free to contact me on my talk page if you find any problems, or have any suggestions or concerns. —SW— ^confess 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Those are pretty cool! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - very nice work. And a reminder of how little I've done on AFD lately. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 21:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding hyphens and dashes

In relation to a request for arbitration on 5 May 2011, the Arbitration Committee has passed by motion these interim decisions:

1. Temporary injunction on the article title disputes secondary to hyphen/endash issue:

   There is to be a moratorium on article title changes that are due to hyphen/endash exchange. The only edits allowed will be to create a redirect to the existing article title until the resolution of the debate below.

   All discussions on the subject of En dashes in article titles discussion (interpreted broadly) are subject to civility and 1RR restrictions. Administrators are urged to be proactive in monitoring and assertive in keeping debate civil. Actions requiring clarification can be raised with the Committee on the appropriate subpage.

2. Motion of instruction to editors involved in dispute:

   Interested parties are instructed to spend from now until 30 May 2011 determining the structure of a discussion on En dashes in article titles to obtain consensus. Note that this can be the continuation of a current discussion or commencement anew. From 30 May 2011, a period of six weeks is granted for the gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate. If after two months, a determination isn't realised, a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely.

Both provisions were passed 12 to 0 with 1 recusal.

For the Arbitration Committee
AGK [•] 21:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

I read somewhere on arb pages that this topic has come up before. I guess we can add "hyphens and dashes" to the huge pile of never ending wiki ethnic wars.BarkingMoon (talk) 22:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pro-life movement#Move?

Would an admin close Talk:Pro-life movement#Move? The discussion has been open since 24 March 2011. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Administrative review has been requested on a set of edits

This is covering a number of general topics at the moment, so it's getting posted here rather than a specific sub-board.

The current issue deals with recent edits to Flash (Barry Allen). The edits in question are: #428656737 - 428668034 (4 total), 428668034, 429318135, 429330125, 429330275.

Ancillary to this are: User talk:CmdrClow#Edit summaries, User talk:J Greb#Re: Edit Summaries which are immediatly related to the edits; Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Final Crisis image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Flash: Rebirth #2 as image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image, Talk:Flash (Barry Allen)#Infobox image 2010 (which is a long one) which are a history of the talk page discussion of this issue; and WP:CMOS#BOXIMAGE, the relavent project level guide line.

At this point the issues that have been raised amount to:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:CIV
• WP:NPA
• WP:AGF
• Misusing and edit summary
• Editing to provoke or bait

CmdrClow indicated he wanted administrative advice/review so I figure it might as well get kicked over here and take what may come. I've indicated to the other editor that I've done this in my response to them on my talk page. I'll also see the notice template on their talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales

I've just removed the picture from Jimbo's picture as it was showing up as a penis. The page has been subject to vandalism. Not sure what is going on here, because the image looks fine elsewhere; somebody can probably figure this out faster than me. [4]Slp1 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Problem seems to have been on commons, and the problem seems to have been taken. Thanks. --Slp1 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I know very little about WP:REVDEL but a another user has pointed out to me that this needs to be removed. Mato (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was in the middle of deleting things when this other issue came up. I'll get back to my original task. Slp1 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. For future reference, is it normal to post requests for RevDel at AN/I in this kind of situation? Mato (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's best to do it as quietly as possible. Get it touch with an administrator who is active, either by email or on their talkpage. that is according to WP:RVDL!! Slp1 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still wondering what's going on. There is a slew of new and sleeper accounts doing this. Is there a checkuser that can investigate further? — Edokter (talk) — 00:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• (ec) I've fully protected Jimmy's userpage for a few days in the hope that this calms down (we've had three autoconfirmed sleepers in about 24 hours). As for the image, if this nonsense is spreading to Commons, i suggest we get a Commons admin to protect it there or upload a local copy of it and protect it here. I wonder if an IP block is possible? What happens if I do this:  Checkuser needed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • A wild checkuser appears! Wild checkuser used checkip. No sleepers were found! Wild checkuser used rangeblock. Nothing happens! Wild checkuser is confused. It has hurt itself in its confusion! Wild checkuser has fainted! TNXMan 02:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The image has been upload-protected both here and on Commons, so no worries there. — Edokter (talk) — 01:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Refactoring and reopening AN (/ANI) threads

Original discussion from WP:ANI presented here as archived Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

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

---

I would like to get fellow users' input on whether (and if so, when) a user can refactor and re-open thread at WP:AfD, WP:MfD, WP:AN and WP:AN/I. I left what (in hindsight) was a snappy and pendantic comment about this. I've always seen WP:AN and WP:AN/I as primarily for the use of admins, but also places for all users from all wikis to post incidents, random observations, and notices. Likewise, WP:XfD pages should not be re-opened except for fixing obvious errors and copyediting. However, I think that only admins should refactor or reopen such pages - based in the premise that these are the "collective talk pages" of all the administrators. It would be wrong to edit other users' talk pages. Re-opening debates or threads also encourages users to beat a dead horse with a stick. Are my premises incorrect? Please don't comment on my comment - I know what I did was impertinent and I don't need further abuse during this very tough week off-wiki. The archives of this page are not helpful to my answer. I'd like to find out how others view non-admins re-opening threads and debates, and when it is approriate to re-open a debate or thread. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So - its your opinion and your suggesting to be written in policy or guidelines somewhere that only admins should refactor or reopen threads at WP:AfD, WP:MfD, WP:AN and WP:AN/I - Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can close any discussion anywhere, if it is the right thing to do. ANI, AFD, RFA, all the same. Prodego ^talk 20:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There are IMO two distinct issues here. There is no issue with non-admins archiving or re-opening threads; with the same caveats as non-admin closures, avoid the controversial! The other issue is re-opening contentious disputes, as in this case. The close was sensible, and upheld when reverted. MMN shouldn't have re-opened it, not because he was not an admin, but because he was involved in the thread and it was closed to end the matter. Which is a matter of poor judgement --Errant ^(chat!) 20:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had to sit on my hand to stop myself closing this. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I've got to reopen this from WP:ANI. I find it concerning that Bearian continues to maintain that "non-sysops" on "admin threads" should not be refactoring (reopening) such threads. What? "Admin thread"? SERIOUSLY?? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly pointed out by admins and non-admins alike, closing or re-opening a thread is not an admin-only privilege. Occasionally someone will propose to make it an admin-only privilege, but as far as I can tell such proposals are always shot down pretty quickly (and rightfully so.) 28bytes (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone had better inform Bearian, then. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)