Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m fix
→‎{{U|Bananas Monkey}} and Renames: And thus is /everything/ on the page closed!
Line 54: Line 54:


== {{U|Bananas Monkey}} and Renames ==
== {{U|Bananas Monkey}} and Renames ==
{{archive top|1=User warned that further moves without [[WP:RM|obtaining consensus]] will result in blocks. - [[User:The Bushranger|The Bushranger]] <sub><font color="maroon">[[User talk:The Bushranger|One ping only]]</font></sub> 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)}}

Hello, Would it be possible to put a restriction on this user, to prevent any further page moves? User seems to spend most of their efforts in systematically renaming articles, some with reason, but the great majority seem to be mis-interpretation of policies. There seems to be a language barrier, from having interacted and reviewing discussions. It looks like a few others have requested the user to stop their good faith, yet disruptive moves. Thanks.--[[User:UnQuébécois|Education does not equal common sense.]] [[User talk:UnQuébécois|我不在乎]] 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Would it be possible to put a restriction on this user, to prevent any further page moves? User seems to spend most of their efforts in systematically renaming articles, some with reason, but the great majority seem to be mis-interpretation of policies. There seems to be a language barrier, from having interacted and reviewing discussions. It looks like a few others have requested the user to stop their good faith, yet disruptive moves. Thanks.--[[User:UnQuébécois|Education does not equal common sense.]] [[User talk:UnQuébécois|我不在乎]] 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:I noticed his unusual renames when he did one on [[Somebody That I Used to Know]]. And, FWIW, this user has been accused of [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]], and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bananas Monkey/Archive|here is the report]]. Nothing else to comment by now. Also, UnQuébécois, could you provide additional info on which other unusual moves he's made? Thanks. —[[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">Hahc</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''21'''</font>]] 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
:I noticed his unusual renames when he did one on [[Somebody That I Used to Know]]. And, FWIW, this user has been accused of [[WP:SOCK|sockpuppetry]], and [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bananas Monkey/Archive|here is the report]]. Nothing else to comment by now. Also, UnQuébécois, could you provide additional info on which other unusual moves he's made? Thanks. —[[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">Hahc</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''21'''</font>]] 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Line 62: Line 62:
**:Well I agree with Drmies. An additional warning over moves not proposed on talk page and then, if xe insists on such moves, progressive blocks may be the only way left, as he is disrupting the 'pedia and making admins use valuable time on reverting his actions. —[[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">Hahc</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''21'''</font>]] 03:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
**:Well I agree with Drmies. An additional warning over moves not proposed on talk page and then, if xe insists on such moves, progressive blocks may be the only way left, as he is disrupting the 'pedia and making admins use valuable time on reverting his actions. —[[User:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">Hahc</font>]][[User_talk:Hahc21|<font color="#333333">'''21'''</font>]] 03:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
*I concur with Drmies. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
*I concur with Drmies. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


== Block-evading, Michigan-based global warming external link spammer; ACTION SOUGHT: 1yr IP range block ==
== Block-evading, Michigan-based global warming external link spammer; ACTION SOUGHT: 1yr IP range block ==

Revision as of 21:25, 3 August 2012

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Open and shut cases

    So I herd u liek closekips? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Action has been taken and the responsible parties have been indeffed.--WaltCip (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wow, there are so many closed cases here that the page looks like a sea of lavender. :)
    ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


    Can someone please close this? Once that is closed the whole page will be purple! Arcandam (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bananas Monkey and Renames

    User warned that further moves without obtaining consensus will result in blocks. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, Would it be possible to put a restriction on this user, to prevent any further page moves? User seems to spend most of their efforts in systematically renaming articles, some with reason, but the great majority seem to be mis-interpretation of policies. There seems to be a language barrier, from having interacted and reviewing discussions. It looks like a few others have requested the user to stop their good faith, yet disruptive moves. Thanks.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed his unusual renames when he did one on Somebody That I Used to Know. And, FWIW, this user has been accused of sockpuppetry, and here is the report. Nothing else to comment by now. Also, UnQuébécois, could you provide additional info on which other unusual moves he's made? Thanks. —Hahc21 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just take a look at users contributions, pretty much a user set up just to do moves. Has numerous requests on talk page to stop moves.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Soft-blocked range for one-month.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

    Caution: Case presents slippery IP issues Apologies for using the "story format". Due to the slippery IP issues I could not organize it otherwise.

    User being reported A block-evading Michigan IP, details below. For one recent example 99.181.142.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Basis of complaint User has obvious POV on global warming and uses persistent external link spamming to advance that POV, without making meaningful attempt to improve articles

    IP RANGE TO BE BLOCKED This is most likely the IPs residence: start 99.181.128.4 stop 99.181.159.79


    EXAMPLE BEHAVIOR

    • [external POV links on talk pages under thim patina of collaboration]. For example with subject heading "Add?" and then the link. As though this constitutes meaningful discussion of a proposed edit.
    • In just two hours on August 1, in the guise of 99.181.142.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this sock made nearly 40 edits, of which about thirty added a global warming or environmental external link consistent with the user's POV in favor of conservation, two made a trivial wordsmithing edit, and the rest turned text to wikilinks for no good reason. My own conservation sentiments are similar, but that's not the point. The point is that my watchlist is full of non-edits consisting of POV-based external link spam, articles I care about are being hit with linkbloat, and I'm wasting hours of happy editing time monitoring and sifting this persistent external link spam.
    • Likely over a 1000 other examples all told.
    • My watchlist has turned into a turn-off.

    DETAILS, WARNINGS, BLOCK EVASION and EVOLVING OPERATING PROCEDURE

    This IP started off with a fairly stable IP address, 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs), at the Kalamazoo Michigan public library. The complicating IP issue is that in May someone else used the same IP to disrupt the project and so this IP is now blocked due to the third party's actions. I'm seeking a block for the primary alternate (an IP range) for the original party. Although this stable IP is nowblocked due to the 3rd party's actions, I will continue telling the story as it unfolded. Last winter, the library IP was the primary, and the first alernate was the IP range for which I seek the block. But it was all the same person.

    They started by slamming climate talk pages with the entire text, or most of the text, from external articles on global warming related issues, like this for example. After Arthur Rubin complained of copyright problems, the IP instead targeted edit summaries.

    After making a minor tweak to an article, the IP would load up the edit summary with unrelated links favoring the IP's POV. For example, after adding a wikilink to Climate change mitigation (meaning cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions to try to stop global warming), the IP abused the edit summary to advance his POV. He did this by loading up the edit summary with many additional links, including links to potentially catastrophic problems that might be caused by global warming if we don't, as the IP wants us to do, start combatting global warming. This is link spam to advance their interests, and that is disruptive and a form of vandalism.

    In midwinter I made several unsuccessful attempts to reform IP 97.87.29.188's behavior, chronicled on my talk page here. Accordingly, on Feb 1, IP 97.87.29.188 was blocked for 30 days for external link spamming.

    HOWEVER, the IP simply continued the behavior from other dynamic IPs....

    Therefore, the 30-day block clock was reset on Feb 16 and yet the IP continued their POV campaign of external link spam. BUT (a key point!!) they switched dynamic IPs. Instead of exposing 99.181.___.___ to additional sanctions, they instead conducted their block evasion using some tertiary (expendable?) sites with dynamic IPs. Details are here. I infer that 99.181.___.___ (the range they protected during the 30 days) is for his primary residence.

    After the 30 days expired, they fired that location back up with a long list of virtually 100% meaningless edits. Note the rapidity of their addition of articles... and a running battle with Arthur who is trying to combat the IPs behavior. From Feb 16 to June 30....

    Collapsed ip list

    ACTION SOUGHT

    • (A) Pretend the block clock for 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs) was reset for each instance of block evasion, instead of erroneously allowed to expire on March 16 due to lack of vigilance (LATER: I struck some of my own prior words because I belatedly realized no admin action was needed to reset the clock. See details under "Answer 1 of 3" below.)
    • (B) Tentative decision to impose IP range block for 12 months pending completion of sock inquiry and checkuser as appropriate.
      • start 99.181.128.4
      • stop 99.181.159.79
    • (C) Advice on what to do when the sock evades the block using the tertiary (expendable?) dynamic IPs used for block evasion before (during the official 30-day block).

    APPRECIATION Many thanks to Arthur Rubin for compiling the IP sock's contrib history.

    NOTICE Since dynamic IP's don't have a one-stop talk page, I am posting notices of this proceeding at four places, one of which will almost certainly get their attention.

    NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    PS, article talk pages and some user talk pages are replete with attempts to reform this users behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the Aug 1, June 16 and May 1 contrib lists (which reflect current behavior) and I'm not seeing a pattern that warrants blocking. Adding a bunch of on topic external links to articles in ScienceNews and BusinessWeek may be excessive, but it doesn't seem disruptive. There are some quite reasonable content disputes, see for example this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banking_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=490257754 and what follows. We operate on the assumption that bad editors can be reformed. Could point out a few edits in the past month that you feel make your case?--agr (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See edit warring at [1] and the ip's edits to Talk:Christianity_and_environmentalism for example of problematic editing against concensus. Note that article has been semiprotected twice this summer due to the ip's editwarring/disruption. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification. The problem on the above page shows that in addition to identical talk page disruption as on climate related pages, the editor is edit warring there against any concensus for his desired content and pushing a different pov. Vsmith (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Answer 1 of 3, after Feb 1 all edit content is irrelevant because WP:SOCK states,
    "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust" and
    "in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart"
    Under this language the act of block evasion itself - not administrator button pushing - restarts the clock. Given the nonstop behavior from the IP, application of the policy as written means the original block is still in "virtual" effect under our policy if not in the server's programming. Would ignoring the rule as written help us improve the project? ANSWER: No. The rule as written reflects the essential need for collaboration, teamwork, and trust and defines block evasion as "a serious breach of community trust". It is the fact of block evasion that restarts the clock, and we have ample examples that show the timing of the evasion, regardless of content.
    Answer 2 of 3, this is a dripping faucet case, not a roadside bomb case. It is the cumulative effects of many non-edits in my primary subject area that is the issue here. On the first night, the dripping faucet is mildly annoying. After 12 months of sleep deprivation you're just about ready for the psych ward. So please adjust your yardstick to think "cumulative lowlevel dirsuption" instead of single bomb vandalism.
    Answer 3 of 3, I will attempt to compile examples subsequent to your earliest date (May 1) to illustrate the dripping faucet and its impact. But that will take some time. Stay tuned. Meanwhile, hopefully other climate editors will chime in. Thanks for your interest and review so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you assuming the sheer volume of edits from this range necessarily implies different editors? I chose 10 random sample IPs from the first page of hits off your link and they all appear to be the subject of this complaint (same style, overlapping main subject area of enviro & climate). Also, this is not a case where the IP is spamming the same thing over and over. As I will show, they have demonstrated no intent on actually editing, and instead make trivial non-edits and bad faith talk page posts for purpose of advancing their own interest in global warming mitigation (halting greenhouse gases) with external links to nearly anything and almost everything that crosses the newswires. So the blacklist suggestion was a good one, but inapplicable here. Thanks anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you assuming the sheer volume of edits from this range necessarily implies different editors? Yes, that was my assumption. I didn't look at the edits, so I could be mistaken. A CU will be able to give us a definate answer for both registered and IP editors. My personal opinion is that page protection is less severe than a one year rangeblock. 64.40.54.25 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, page protection is ill-advised because of the multitude of article/talk pages, and because a lot of good faith IP editors would be negatively impacted.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I do believe that a /19 network is 8192 addresses (x.x.0.0 - x.x.31.255, ie: 32 Class C networks), which is indeed a fair amount of collateral damage. In extreme cases, that kind of damage might be accepted for a very short period of time, but I don't remember a range block of that size, from a known carrier (AT&T Internet Services) being maintained for even a full day. You need to look at page protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Page semi-protection can be applied, however, the wide number and variety of articles involved is problematic plus the bulk of the disruptive editing occurs on talk pages and we don't normally semiprotect those. Seems our ip jumping editor knows this and is using it to game the system. Perhaps the range should be examined to see if many/any valid ip edits are not this problem editor. Vsmith (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I don't know, I would have to defer to someone who knows networks better than I do, and I doubt it would be a 1 year block. That is a lot of IPs. Not sure who would be a good admin to ask, maybe they will wander by and chime in. And maybe something smaller than /19 could be used, I haven't done all the math here, didn't bring my slide rule with me today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge the technical challenge this presents. There has got to be some way, else the IP's methods are a blueprint for others on how to disrupt any controversial subject area, and the ultimate result could easily be an end to all IP editing. Since that is an outcome to be avoided, let's keep looking for an answer! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I've sliced this pie 100 times and there isn't a way to get less than /19 that I can tell, they are all static broadband, and adsl [2] which I thought was a little odd. Not cellphone. I'm trying to determine what the real damage would be now by determining the typical use on that particular leg of the network. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is actually part of 99.176.0.0/12, over 1 million adsl addresses[3]. He might only have access to /19 of, or maybe that is all we have seen so far. To answer below, you don't really sanction an IP, you block it or don't. It is not a person, it is an address and any number of people can be using it over a month's time. I can't block here, maybe someone else can. I'm at the end of what I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would also appreciate some kind of sanctions or block against this user. The constant "Please add random article link?" posts to talk pages and other link spam certainly do clutter watchlists, and add nothing useful to the articles. The user also provides less than helpful responses to other user comments. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      We don't block an entire range of ips just because your watchlist is cluttered.--JOJ Hutton 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except this clutter is a defined form of disruptive vandalism because the primary purpose of the uer's contribs is to conduct external link spam in support of the user's POV.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Soft blocked the range for a month. Those interested should monitor the editing area for the active socks that will inevitably arise.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Copyright violations and plagiarized public domain content

    Blocked for copyvio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    199.46.198.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The above IP has been placing unattributed additions on vaccine related materials. The contributions are multiple sentence in length, sometimes with minimal modification. Some sources are public domain, but are still unattributed. A warning about copyrighted materials was placed, but the behavior continued. This did not go to WP:CCI because:

    1. I'm not sure this has reached "long term";
    2. I think the violations from this IP have been dealt with; and
    3. the board is backlogged.

    Examples:

    1. PMID 19837285 to this and this.
    2. PMID 19162109 to this.
    3. Content from this public domain source wound up here and here.
    4. After the warning, the behavior continued. This edit used wording that has been kicking around internet forums for a while, even if I did not find the original.
    5. This is straight from PMID 6469355.

    The above list is far from exhaustive. While I believe all the incidents from this IP have been dealt with (more eyes wouldn't hurt), any assistance in stemming the problem would be appreciated.Novangelis (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked 1 month for persistent copyvios. I looked at him yesterday and removed one their contribs for that. Thank you for bring it up.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content that is the public domain is not subject to copyright at all, so there isn't a way to infringe upon the "rights" because you have the right to do whatever you want to it, for all intent and purposes. Literally, it is impossible to infringe works that are in the Public Domain. Attribution is not required, even when it is a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for IP edit blocks and page protection

    IP blocked, pages protected. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP User 67.164.72.88 (and formerly 24.113.190.101) continue to re-add the same false data to five articles related to Gargoyles (TV series). Although I already knew this information to be false (obviously alone am not a reliable source) I also cannot verify it in any form except for a few similar Wikia.com articles requesting deletion claiming (as I assumed) to be fan faction.

    Diffs for IP:24.113.190.101: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Diffs for IP:67.164.72.88: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

    As they are the only types of edits made with these IPs, I request an edit block for both as well as possible temporary protection of articles Gargoyles (TV series), Gargoyles the Movie: The Heroes Awaken, Zach Tyler Eisen, and Keke Palmer. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    67* blocked 24h; 24* is stale. Articles protected for a week. If he comes back, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP should be used. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ched Davis is not qualified to be an admin

    No matter how anyone feels about the unblock, this isn't the venue to reconsider the admin bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:HanzoHattori was community banned two years ago, and that accounts userpage still says they'r banned. HH socked in the meantime and his latest (apparent) sock, User:Niemti, was blocked after an SPI investigation. Administrator User:Ched Davis unilaterally unblocked the sock, which is in direct violation of WP:BAN. An unban discussion at WP:AN located here [4] showed no consensus for an unban, yet the sock was unilaterally unbanned anyway. A large number of people expressed their reservations about this, those concerns were ignored and the discussion was closed. You can either rewrite the policy to allow administrators to unilaterally undo bans or you can believe that Ched Davis isn't qualified for his sysop bit. An administrator who grossly violates core policy ought to be desysopped. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • A couple of points. I don't see what ANI can do about this, other than argue over the issue further. Your wording implies that Ched Davis went against consensus, when actually there was support for the unblock. There were also arguments against it - that you disagree with Ched's interpretation of the consensus...well, what do you expect ANI to do? He's open to recall (see here). Go talk to him instead of making a dramatic thread on a noticeboard. OohBunnies! (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tell you what Burpelson AFB, when you contribute comparable quality content to the encyclopaedia as Niemti has, then I will listen to your argument. Comparing your two contribs list for the last few days is... compelling. Sorry to be harsh, but there you go. --Errant (chat!) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The action was closed for lack of consensus, no reason to keep someone blocked in absence of a consensus. Ched is an experienced admin who appropriately racheted down the dramazah until the process plays its way out. An ad homenim attack like this is inappropriate. Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two problems here. Burpelson, I don't see you talking to to Ched on his talk page, and we generally require that to bring up an ANI, a show of effort to resolve the problem with the other participant. Second, I was there and opposed the unblock strongly, and watched the unblock, and disagreed with Ched on his view of consensus, yet this has already played out at WP:AN, and this ANI might be seen as a second bite of the apple. Even though I disagree with Ched on the unblock, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a good admin and I fully support him. Blocks are cheap, and if an admin is to "err", I would rather see it on an unblock than on a block. I also know and respect you a great deal, and I completely understand while you are a bit pissed, it irked me a bit as well, but I respect Ched enough to give Niemti (and Ched) a little rope. The deed is done and there was no consensus there at WP:AN to undo it. It was bold. It was classic WP:IAR. Time will tell if Ched was more insightful than us, or simply foolish. Reblocking is easy if Ched was wrong, and we can explore it at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Burp, I recall that discussion about Niemti and IIRC HH was from 4 years ago and Niemti has been producing content. Now, has Niemti been producing content? Yes. Has he been disruptive? Not that I saw. If so, show me. Now you mainly seem to hang around drama pages and here you accuse Ched of not being qualified to be an admin. Now, if you'd bothered to look at the thread just above yours on Ched's talk page, re you'd see that the blocking admin, JamesBWatson, told Ched he had no objection to an unblock. This is how it's supppossed to work. Now you on the otherhand, come here and accuse Ched of being unfit. Far from it, Ched acted most appropriately but you cause more unneeded drama that will go nowhere and on top of that a good case could be made for this being a personal attack. Plus you never brought this up with Ched. Now, go produce some content. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    HanzoHattori II

    This is over. Closing per WP:ROPE. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Too late, it's already ugly -- there's no need to bash Burpelson AFB and go on about his contributions; if contributions are the measure of an editor, ya'll should be yelling at me for the close, as BA has more than three times the number of mainspace edits I do. The AN & ANI close protocol is an undocumented experiential thing -- I closed it because two of my very few wiki talents is "reading the wiki wind" and the unblock isn't going to be flipped and I hoped the close would just stop the drama. Obviously I was wrong and BA isn't knowledgeable enough of the unwritten rules to realize they should have just rolled the close off if they felt strongly enough to add a comment. Ched acted in good faith and BA did too (and I tried). Nobody Ent 22:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I was, a little ungently, just prompting the OP to consider exactly why we are here. I think it is fine to point out what I did; because I think that, although in good faith, in pursuing this he has lost sight of that. --Errant (chat!) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is usually better to just address the concern, explain another perspective and not diminish the person expressing the concerns. It sounds personal if you start comparing the reporting party to others, as that isn't the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda my point. Is the issue that "HH is suddenly unblocked", or is it "admin X unblocked someone without fully apparent consensus"? Of course, asking that question will open up others, including "does the OP have a negative history with either HH or the admin?" The answeres to which could lead to more drama than a Shakespeare festival dangerouspanda 23:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have opposed the unblock of HH and since he was unblocked, I was seriously concerned that he would cause serious trouble despite our good faith efforts, and I think he has. So I also think it's better if we should just address the concerns and ask ourselves questions about the issues presented in the above comment. Other than that, I feel that only time might tell if the unblock was too much. Since some of the answers to the questions might lead to more drama per the concerns by EatsShootsAndLeaves, I think that we should just bring forth a swifter resolution to bring this drama to an end. Any thoughts or ideas? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROPE. Reblocks are cheap if and when they cause more problems in the future. Based on their history, their first block will likely be indef. Close this and move on dangerouspanda 23:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Explorationofspace

    Troll quest completed. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Back when this user modified the 2012 Olympics games, he inputted an original research piece after discovering or based off a twitter feed that the logo if colored appropriately would look like Bart Simpsons receiving fellatio from Lisa Simpsons. It was kind of irrelevant and I removed it because I assumed without the source to be vandalism. He later attacked me because he assumed I was a bot reverting his contribution especially his colorful language here [5]. You can view the discussion during his block where he still maintains a negative attitude instead of assuming WP:AGF. I ignored the entire thing and moved on while keeping his talk page on my watch list. Then today I noticed he's having an issue with another user debating the usage of a Ford Escape photo and then he dropped the ethnic slur "pindos" [6] which I did not know what that term meant until I had to look it up on Google.

    Pindos (пиндос) is a Russian ethnic slur and filth term, currently used for referring Americans in a strongly derogatory manner. Respectively, the USA is called Pindostan or Pindosia.

    This user must be reminded to maintain a civil voice here at Wikipedia and omit from using racial terms including personal attacks. ViriiK (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Or banned. Forever. By preference.Explorationofspace (talk) 22:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth a minimum of 48 hr block. Ethnic insults only come from the lowest of the low. No sign that they understand any of the five pillars dangerouspanda 22:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, if I give you any of the accounts I've ever used for this project since 2006, also all the possible IPs, also whatever names I can think of ever signing up with again (actually, if you just ban the static I will give you, I guarantee that as long as I'm home I won't hurt Wikipedia anymore)? See, the thing is... I like to lie. I like to give false dates to future events, I like to write stuff which never occurred, and to edit articles I have no clue about. It's kinda entertaining. You'll hardly ever meet such a troll/vandal again, but oh well... The choice is yours,Explorationofspace (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User: Jason532012

    Jason indeffed and an IPsock blocked Toddst1 (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Editor User:Jason532012 has become continually disruptive in the talk section of Talk:David Irving. For the past few days, he has constantly cluttered up the page with suggestions for edits that expressly violate WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, and WP:NOR. After having his arguments questioned, and it is suggested that he read up on Wikipedia policy, he either goes into debate that has nothing to do with valid edits the article, or becomes insulting and somewhat threatening. He then starts new conversations about things that have already been discussed, starting the disruption of the page all over again. This has gone on for several days, and the talk page of the David Irving article has subsequently become a mess. He continues the same disruptive behavior no matter how many times it is asked that he be more civil and review Wikipedia's rules. According to his talk page, he has also been disruptive in other talk pages of articles, despite that he has not contributed any actual edits to Wikipedia articles. Xombie (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified him yet? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Since he just posted the report, I presume he's in the process of notifying right now…) —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This recently opened account has been used almost exclusively for commenting on talk pages on David Irving, who is a well-known holocaust denier, and Anti-Semitism. In one of his first postings, on the talk page of an article about the Dreyfus affair, which is regarded as a notorious example of anti-Semitism, Jason532012 writes,

    "...I've noticed that in each and every article I've read here at Wiki, over the past several years, related to Judaism, and/or Jewish groups in general, the words anti-semitism, and anti-semitic, are always systematically sprinkled throughout. This well-worn Jewish insistance that each and every opponent is motivated strictly by bias and prejudice is, not only exclusive to the Jewish groups, but quite often ill-contrived at best. I personally believe it's time to leave the obligatory Jewish apologetics behind us, and present any and all Jewish articles in the same unbiased light in which we present those of the many other ethnic, religious, and political groups. Given the obvious protective bias that Wiki holds for the Jewish diaspora, I've been extremely careful here not to be entirely too critical of the group. I've also been careful not to move beyond the facts. So I guess we'll see if Wiki will allow the same criticism of articles relating to this group that we see of the other groups. If not, the anti-semitic police will simply cut my edit with the same rusty sword that I'm certain has cut so many before. Thank you."[7]

    All his postings have made similar points, that Wikipedia is hiding harmful information about the Jews. Editors have been patient with him. However his postings have not changed. Notice his comment, "Wow, you folks are such a joke. I actually enjoy this hobby, because it grinds you so."[8] I suggest a topic-ban on articles related to Jews and anti-Semitism.

    TFD (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He has posted on the talk page for Anti-Semitism as well, making absurd claims which a number of editors have rejected and politely asked him to stop espousing these views. It was mentioned on the talk page that Wikipedia isn't a place to insert personal views into articles to push an agenda. It was also mentioned why it wouldn't be appropriate to include what he writes in this article, and a link to another article where it's written about (although not as a fact, as he claims it to be, which is completely outrageous). Yet he continues, to the point that he engages in the act of twisting history upside down and spinning it in a centrifuge multiple times. On the talk page of David Irving, some of his comments are highly offensive, for example his conspiracy theory about "Wiki's relentless abuse of Jewish apologetics to prejudice the reader." In fact, I'm not so sure he's so serious about any of his editing, as he wrote on the Irving talk page also, "Wow, you folks are such a joke. I actually enjoy this hobby, because it grinds you so." [update: I see TFD mentioned this above as well]--Activism1234 00:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Point of evidence: Additional diff: [9] from Talk:Antisemitism. Telling sentence: "The historical record is very clear that the Jews have been banned from nearly every single country on this planet for their illconcieved practices of usury, brokering, and banking in general, including parts of the United States by General Grant."
    User clearly on WP:SOAPBOX (and per the "because it grinds you so") approaching trolling level. Doesn't help that the soapbox opinion is impolitic to say the least. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's also possible he's a sock. His comment, mentioned above, "I've noticed that in each and every article I've read here at Wiki, over the past several years." Funny comment, considering he joined on July 25, 2012, per his logs... --Activism1234 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever the case with that, I'm indefinitely blocking now for disruption. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)
    People rarely come in as new editors from having been brand new readers. Most people use Wikipedia now; a lot fewer edit (and fewer than that have accounts).
    That comment is not therefore a reliable admission of sockpuppetry.
    Is he one? Possible. Not like we don't have recurrently returning antisemitic sockpuppeteers. But we need either a behavioral or technical link, not just him holding that opinion. The opinion is not so rare that we can or should assume it's always the same people coming back. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    True, I interpreted his comments differently but now I see what you mean and I agree with you. --Activism1234 00:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Electriccatfish2

    Chip123456 wasn't involved in closures and Electriccatfish2 is retiring. In general, there's consensus that non-admin "clerk" roles should probably be formally proposed first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 7:29 pm, Today (UTC+7)
    Closure restored after being reverted by non-admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Electriccatfish2 (talk · contribs) and Chip123456 (talk · contribs), neither of them admins not an admin that I can tell, seem[s] to be getting a bit over-enthusiastic in patrolling some admin pages. I say it is up to admins to decide what reports to close. What say y'all? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are their closures problematic? Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is no problem if non-admins bring some help at these admin-related pages if their contributions and actions are not problematic/controversial. Fasttimes asked and so do I: Are their actions problematic? —Hahc21 03:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I would hope that Bugs would not open a new thread here if the closures were not problematic. After all, it has been noted in the past that Bugs is himself an "over-enthusiastic" commenter on this Administrator's noticeboard :-)
    This does seem to be an issue that goes around and around; there have been quite a few concerns recently about non-admin closures of permissions requests by Electriccatfish2 and others, comments that implied individual administrators were being approached about providing user-rights for members of the wikiproject that Electriccatfish2 and Chip are part of, and so on.
    Although, according to the thread I'm not part of this anymore, ECF has been warned by CVUA coords and myself about asking admins to provide userrightSmChip123456 11:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Problematic? I could go and do non-admin closes on a dozen controversial AfDs right now, but I think people might still want to question whether I should have done so, even if my closures were "right" in that admins ultimately agreed with them. I don't think it's unreasonable for Bugs to ask the question.
    Bugs does perhaps need to be more specific about which particular boards concern him - AIV is the one he's mentioned on a user talk page. Are there more? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I post a complaint about a user at AIV, I expect an admin to make a judgment as to whether it's blockworthy or not. I do not appreciate non-admins taking issue with it and then zapping it on the grounds of "declined". Offering advice is one thing. Usurping an admin's authority is something else again. I'm thinking back on a user a year or so ago [I think it was Barts1a] who was doing that kind of thing, and was told to stop it or he would be blocked. The same situation applies here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to add, this may be a wider issue, and singling out these two individual editors may not make much sense. There's been a fair amount of discussion of a very much related issue at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions but for various reasons the discussion there has foundered. Here may not be the best place either. Maybe a broader discussion somewhere at the village pump would be better, to work out what we actually want non-admins to be doing in terms of closures, and why. The conclusions seem to depend on a very small number of people thus far, which leads to this kind of dispute. Bugs may or may not be right that it's accepted practice for non-admins not to behave like this at AIV - I don't know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know anything about "Requests for permissions" discussion. I do know that AIV stands for "Administrator intervention against vandalism". I'm very happy to receive helpful advice from non-admins. I am not happy about non-admins deciding to delete stuff that it's only an admin's place to delete. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, i have to agree with Bugs; non-admins are invited to comment and give helpful advice, but closing and archiving threads might be over the line, as it's intended to be done only by sysops. —Hahc21 03:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec x 2) I agree with Bugs as well. It looks like they have been working the user-name noticeboard as well. Non-admins are welcome to comment but they should not be calling a report "declined" and removing it from the board unless it was an admin that declined the report. The case that prompted Bug's report is this one, where Catfish declined a report and then removed it from the board. And here's a recent one from the UAA board where Chip declined the report and Catfish removed it from the board. So neither of these cases actually saw any administrator attention. These boards are intended for issues that users wish to bring to administrators' attention, not to the attention of random people who choose to patrol these boards. That's my opinion. Sorry if it sounds kinda harsh. -- Dianna (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the two items I'm talking about, yes. The AIV one was mine, and the UAA one I happened to see but it wasn't mine. If there's a larger issue afoot, it needs to be dealt with too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose a policy change. Non admins should not be masquerading as admins. Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't even masquerading, or at least Catfish wasn't. He clearly stated "non-admin opinion". That's fine. Then he took it upon himself to delete the thread as "declined". That was NOT fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If a non-admin "declined" a report of mine at AIV and then removed it, it would go right back up with a stern admonition not to do it again. It ain't NAIV, after all. That's just me. Doc talk 03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's essentially what I did. But as I am not an admin, it occurred to me that a warning from an admin might have a little more "clout". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will put a note on the talk page of both of these individuals. Further instances of this problem, please re-post your case, and then put a polite notice on the user's talk page not to remove cases unless an admin has declined the case. And if they persist, please feel free to call on me, or bring it to this board if that is your preference. -- Dianna (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this still happening? I had mentioned my concerns previously but was unaware it was still occurring. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 04:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well shit. It looks like JamesBWatson warned them in June, as well. We got trouble; we are not getting through to this editor. -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My own opinion is that a non-administrator should not perform any AIV/UAA action that is reasonably likely to mislead another into believing they are an administrator. To me this means that non-administrators should mark any comments made on the page as non-administrative, and that they should never remove reports from the noticeboard itself, unless the report has already been closed by an administrator. I also believe that they shouldn't do anything at all unless it actually helps. But to be fair to both of these editors, we are dealing with scattered opinions. The consensus is not clear about the proper role of non-administrators on these noticeboards, so it would be unfair to admonish these editors significantly without clarity of opinion. There are quite a number of administrators who welcome comments (maybe not removals), especially when the appropriateness of the comment is obvious. With respect to Baseball, I think Catfish was clearly correct in his assessment of the AIV report that prompted this thread - hopefully, however, a prevailing consensus on the broader issue may soon become apparent. NTox · talk 05:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing an AIV report is the job of this guy. After an admin has dealt with it. NAO comments are one thing, but removing reports (that have not been addressed by an admin) from those boards is a no-no. Doc talk 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, we have a bot at UAA too. I would suggest that you, NTox, as a non-admin, should let that bot do its job.[10] Doc talk 05:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, the bot does not remove a report unless an administrator has blocked the account. It does not remove reports that have been declined by an administrator. Those need to be removed manually. Please see the recent discussion at WT:UAA in which non-administrators have been specifically asked to help with this. NTox · talk 06:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see - sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Too bad the bots can't do that for declined reports (yet?); but naturally they wouldn't know if an admin or a non-admin had declined. Removing reports when no admin has even commented on it, as was demonstrated above, should be avoided. Some lucky mop handler will get to the report eventually. Doc talk 06:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That, I do agree with. NTox · talk 06:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like we have a reoccurring trend lately. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, haven't been here in a while. I haven't mad an NAC since for a while, can someone point out a recent one for me please! The one on UAA was a comment, it wasn't declined. Furthermore, I had a private email from Daniel Case (talk · contribs) (oversight, admin) saying he had no problem with this, but since I received that email, I haven't closed any. Thanks--Chip123456 06:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing anything keeping you in this report at all. I'd say you're free to go, but that would be a (Non-administrator comment). Doc talk 08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I concur with comments made by Demiurge and NTox. One of the reasons why I, and possibly some other admins I know, rarely participate on this noticeboard and other places such as WP:RPE, and Unblock requests is specifically because they have become a venue for wannabe admins. This inevitably causes backlogs and some issues to be archived without conclusions. It's a viscous circle because non-admins see this and believe it is within their remit to do our job for us. There are plenty of other areas where users can play at being Internet-style 'moderators', such as vandal-fighting and NewPagePatrol where they can work without needing special rights and without trying to take decisions of the kind for which they possibly lack the knowledge and/or experience. If they want to be admins, there are plenty of other areas, such as content building, help desks, GA, and FA, to name a few, where the best all-round experience is gained and with which they can impress their future !voters at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure that admins avoiding administrator noticeboards because they believe non-admins have taken control of them is a good thing. Someone is just bound to fill the gap... the gap left by the lack of administrator presence. It's a vicious circle, alright. Doc talk 07:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Concurring again - it's not a good thing, but it is happening. Perhaps I'll try to get involved more often. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also - * Relisting an AfD (for a 3rd time) six hours after it had already been done by an admin - if you're going to do admin tasks, at least do them right! Black Kite (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I actually don't see why I'm here! The diff originally provided was a comment of mine, which didn't say declined or whatever. I've had an email from Dan Case, but haven't put what he said to use. I haven't made an NAC for sometime, so if someone could expalin why I am here, it would be appreciated. Cheers. Chip123456 08:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Similar incidents also happening at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover , obviously not the thing to be encouraged. The FMV request of a user editing here since last 8 years with 62818 edits (including filespace and commons edits) was rejected by a One of the non-admins . The non-admin user even chose to comment on me when I reverted his "not so appropriate" closure. I admit that these editors are well-intentioned but (allow me to say) "over enthusiastic". Its preferable that after giving their opinion they leave certain cases for more experienced admins.--DBigXray 08:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My two cents is that non-admin closures are fine on pages that do not require admin privileges to enforce in any way. On ones that DO require admin privileges (RFPP, AIV, UAA, etc.) non-admin comments are certainly welcome and I can say I've relied on them several times in making a closure on some noticeboard or another. However a non-admin closure presents an issue, particularly if there maybe rev-deleted edits involved, or if a wrong decision prevents a page from receiving admin intervention that it needs. Also I want to reiterate that it doesn't look like anyone here is impersonating an admin in anyway; the comments are clearly market non-admin (and arguably, for just a comment, I don't even think they would need to be. Anyone has the right to comment.) So Chip, don't get discouraged. Enthusiasm is great, but if the final decision involves access rights that one doesn't have, one should not make a closure decision (with a few exceptions, such as say Clerks on a page with those.) ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like I'm not making myself clear, per Swatjesters comments above. I have not (for a while) and do not intend to make an NAC's. If you have read my previous comments, you would understand this, and also understand that A. I'm not making them B. Its not just ECF (user Armbrust for example) and C. I am confused to why I am here, so would like a thorough explantion, for me. Excuse the bold, but obviously I'm not being seen, and would appreciate some answers. Thanks. Chip123456 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Chip, please inform Armbrust of this thread since you mentioned him. DBigXray, please notify Riley Huntley for the same. Doc talk 10:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Green tickY Informed Riley --DBigXray 11:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Chip, that was me not being clear. I wasn't suggesting that you were, or will do them. I was talking in general about enthusiasm for helping out on project-space pages as a non-admin.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my names has been removed grom the thread name now, so I'm out of here. It seems there has been a lot of confusion. Bugs should of contatced Electric or myself if there was a problem, as this was the first time I heard of this issue - and seen as I haven't done anything wrong, I feel embaressed over something I haven't done wrong and that this thread has started. You can deal with Electric in due course - but i feel an apology from bugs is needed to me. Thanks. Chip123456 11:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty simple - non-admins should not be performing admin tasks. That ranges from archiving discussions on these noticeboards, declining unblocks or username changes, or removing reports from AIV or elsewhere. The only exception is WP:NAC of AfD, but even they should be few and far between, and only when there is absolute consensus. GiantSnowman 11:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common practice for any qualified editor to close AN & ANI reports as doing so does not require admin privileges. Concur with the other instances given. Nobody Ent 12:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to excercize my right to vanish. Electric Catfish 12:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to continue this discussion, I messed up bigtime, and I'm leaving. Bye! Electric Catfish 12:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely your choice, as no one's asking for anything even remotely along those lines. You didn't mess up that badly. Relax. Doc talk 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just trying to help and than I get this. Electric Catfish 12:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Catfish, you are very well needed here, Your enormous contributions are well appreciated. This thread is discussing the prevalence of such incidents in general. Please do not get offended, some editors are concerned about it, hence the discussion--DBigXray 12:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Chip123456 has stated that he's not going to do this again and Electriccatfish2 is retiring. In general, there's consensus that non-admin "clerk" roles should probably be formally proposed first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Moved from proposed close Nobody Ent[reply]

    No problem with the close, but there's no such consensus, at least here and at AN. If such a consensus is to be determined, ANI is not the correct forum; if some editors want to change the existing practice here I recommend an RFC. Nobody Ent 12:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Chip merely commented at the UAA, which is fine. Catfish "removed declined report",[13] which was the wrong thing to do, as it had not been "declined", but merely commented upon. He also commented at AIV and then "declined" it himself, which again was thw wrong thing to do. As Catfish was apparently warned about this kind of thing before, he should have known better. But he didn't need to leave wikipedia. Perhaps he'll come back when he's had a chance to reflect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a proper way to deal with these issues, and ANI is not it. The user talk page is a start, then on a talk page of a regular admin at AIV, for example, who can help and give instructions to the editor making mistakes. Non-admin participation is important and needed here. There are some limits to what can be done, but that is an issue of clarity, not of good faith, so coming here wasn't a good idea, even if your faith was good. AFD, closing discussions, making recommendations, are all important roles and part of the training and learning process. Since they were both mentioned or are here, I would consider Armbrust and Nobody Ent excellent examples of non-admins that to it right (although Ent has a nasty habit of boldly reverting me at times ;). Instead of throwing editors in the stocks, we need to point them to people that do it right and let them learn how to be more effective. I've left a message on Catfish's talk page, but needless to say I will not be amused if he really does retire over this, since his mistakes were in good faith, even if in bad form. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What on Earth. That is the "existing practice" (that non-admins should not be performing quasi-administrative tasks without first getting consensus for them). Why exactly did you undo the close if you have "no problem" with it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, many admins have communicated with me over the past hour, either by my talk page or by email, requesting me to return. The Answer: Of course, but in a few months from now. Also, this thread gives the idea that non-admins shouldn't participate in admin-related areas. I agree that an RFC would be best, and let's see how the community here feels. Also, it doesn't say anywhere in our policies here about what non-admins can do, so perhaps an RFC would get things going. Best, Electric Catfish 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    No, consensus has always been that non-admins can do anything that doesn't require admin tools to complete. There are certain areas, such as unblock requests, where that have been carved out as areas where non-admins should not act. That there are some non-admins making bad NACs in areas that have traditionally been admin dominated should be addressed, but banning all NACs both good and bad is not the solution, and there has not been consensus established for that. Monty845 13:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Involved Admin closed a "deletion discussion" after only twenty minutes

    Admin apologized, no further action needed. --Rschen7754 07:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    I am uninvolved editor on any of the pages. I had never edited the main pages (until I reverted the redirect) nor the talk pages of any of the involved articles and only stumbled across the "closed" deletion discussion by accident.

    Admin Yunshui closed this RFD after it was open for only twenty minutes, citing speedy delete. He then redirected the article to Chick-fil-A citing speedy redirect. Not that it matters but another editor changed the redirected target a few hours later.

    Although Yunshui did not directly take part in the 20 minute deletion discussion, the admin did earlier begin a discussion at the Talk:Chick-fil-A, citing that the same subject does not merit an article and proposed to merge the article. Yunshui had already made his/her opinion public before closing an RFD that he/she had already publicly stated that he/she said should not exist. Yunshai commented later that he/she [closed the RFD because the article was already been merged, which isn't true, because Yunshai closed the RFD before redirecting the article. He/she also stated that it would have been a Snow Close anyway, which is odd because it had only been open for twenty minutes. Can't tell what "would" have happened in only twenty minutes.

    I attempted to reopen the article, but was reverted by another involved editor User:Ryan Vesey, telling me to take it to DRV. Again I attempted to reinstate the article, explaining that RFDs need to last longer than 20 minutes and that the next stop would ANI, he still reverted again.

    Not wanting to keep Yunshai in the dark as to my intentions, I left a message on his/her talk page about the conflict, but have yet to receive a reply.

    There were references to this discussion at Talk:Chick-fil-A#Merger proposal about that being the "consensus" for the merge, but that was hardly done appropriately, nor did the discussion last long enough, and in the end, we can't avoid the fact that the admin who did all of this was involved and should not have been the one involved in any redirecting of the article.--JOJ Hutton 04:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The proper forum for discussing a controversial RfA closure is Wikipedia:Deletion Review, a fact that I pointed out to Jojhutton when I reverted. In addition, the deletion discussion was never re-opened. We were left with an article that went against the decision of an administrator at AfD with a link to a discussion that was closed. Finally, for what it's worth, I love Chick-fil-A and would prefer the existence of an article on the topic; however, I don't believe our policies allow it. Ryan Vesey 04:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry but this is more about an involved admin closing discussions and redirecting articles. Besides the article wasn't deleted, so Deletion Review isn't the proper forum.--JOJ Hutton 04:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions" (emphasis mine). In either case, reverting the redirect was the worst solution you could have come up with. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      First of all, "Worst" really? Worse than walking in front of a speeding train? I just couldn't resist pointing out the over dramatizing of that statement. Your "involved" statements have been linked. Is there anything new you wish to add?
    I was surprised to see the AfD (not RfD) on Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was even created; after performing the merge, the correct course of action for User:MsFionnuala would have been to redirect the page. Since an AfD was opened instead, I closed it as a speedy redirect, and redirected (not deleted) the page. I would have been be more than happy to reopen the AfD if requested (apologies to Jojhutton for not responding to their message when it was posted, but that was at ten to three in the morning my time, and much as I'd like to be on Wikipedia 24/7, I'm still human enough to need sleep...) but since we're here now I'll let another admin step in and do that if consensus requires it. In any case, since the page was never deleted, deletion review would be a bit pointless - if Jojhutton disagrees with the redirect, nothing is stopping him from reverting to a pre-redirect version of the page, and we can then continue to discuss the proposed merge.
    Perhaps I should have requested another admin perform the move, leastways if I had done so we wouldn't be here now. I apologise, and will in future try and avoid making even (supposedly) uncontraversial AfD closes where I've had a hand in the article in question. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally as an admin, I would not close an AfD on an article in which I had been involved to the extent Yunshi was (except for vandalism, or where it had been procedurally CSDd, and deleted by me during the AfD). I would probably have let the RfA last a little longer before speedy closing it on the basis of two early speedy votes. However, Yunshi's explanation and apology above are perfectly acceptable, and I suggest we all get back to work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)From my perspective, it looks like the right call made by the wrong person, in good faith. Normally, if we have expressed an opinion about the topic recently or made substantial edits, we need to not close it. The other side of the coin with being WP:INVOLVED isn't about making a bad decision, it is about public perception and that the community must have faith that the decision was objective. Here, Yunshui should not have closed the discussion. JOJ left a proper notice about it on Yunshui's page first (and perhaps should have waited for a reply before coming here). Ryan, while DRV is the place to go for deletions, it is often better to not be so bureaucratic and allow the process to be reverted, and it might have been worthwhile to reopen the AFD because JOJ's rationale is rock solid. No one did anything in bad faith here, and the end result is likely what an uninvolved admin would have done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 07:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I don't see a particular problem with this. Any editor is permitted to perform a redirect, involved, admin or otherwise. Should he have closed the AFD? No, but the AFD was superfluous to begin with unless there was some debate over the appropriateness of the merge. Trout applied, outcome was appropriate anyway. I hope this can now be closed. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Gauge00

    BLOCKED
    by JohnCD Nobody Ent 11:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Gauge00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been WP:OWNing List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which was decided by consensus in a recent AfD to be merged. Unfortunately, all attempts to reason with this user, who happens to be creator of the list, were met with rambling and venomous abuse (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Re:_List_of_people_of_the_Romance_of_the_Three_Kingdoms; or more specifically these diffs [14][15], which are just the more recent ones and ignoring his history of abuse.) Another user has brought up this user's behaviour at WP:WQA at the end of June (Here in the archive, which lists some more instances of abuse), but we've received no assistance there and Gauge00 has since picked up with his personal attacks on whoever that dares cross paths with him. One user has already left in frustration, so we'll appreciate any help we can get. _dk (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (It appears WQA was unstaffed when the request was made.) The comments diff here are beyond the (unfortunately) usual snarkiness and well into the personal attack realm. Gauge00 was already warned for [16] in June by Mr. Stradivarius, so either a final warning by an admin or a block is warranted. Nobody Ent 10:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely time for a block. Multiple attacks on one talk page thread not to mention attacking an admin for deleting an article (although that is rather old and they'd been warned for that) is not the way to be collaborative. It's also highly ironic that they quote WP:CIVIL. Blackmane (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for one week. JohnCD (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Whoblitzell compromised?

    BLOCKED
    by Floquenbeam as compromised or disruptive. Regards, — Moe ε 16:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user made this diff [17] to a page on my watchlist, which I subsequently reverted as vandalism. After looking at this users's contributions I find this blatant disprution to be out of character and this is the first edit in over three years, leading me to believe this account may have been compromised. User will be notified. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the limited edit history, and a few borderline edits in the past, I'm thinking it could well be the original owner, and maybe they just decided to mess around with the old account after being gone for years. I don't think there is a good way to tell if the account is in fact compromised, but as they have no permissions beyond autoconfirmed, it would probably be best to just treat it like any other potentially disruptive account and go through the normal warning process followed by an WP:AIV report. Monty845 16:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really "potential" disruption. I've blocked the account indef. Either the account's been compromised, or the owner can explain that edit from inside an unblock request template. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to post a level 4 final warning, but I can't argue against it being blockworthy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bad edit filter

    RESOLVED
    TFD has been filed for IP, no consensus for tweaking filter Nobody Ent 18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The "template vandalism" filter at Special:AbuseFilter/422 should be disabled. Even though my IP has changed, this filter blocked me from adding information to a template and filing a TFD. --187.126.142.32 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This filter serves a useful purpose in preventing damage to templates, which can affect hundreds or even thousands of articles. I see no attempt to add any information besides a {{tfd}} template with no reason; perhaps you should suggest why you feel the template should be removed on its talk page? — Coren (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (For those who cannot see the filter details, a necessary part of the filter is to prevent substing of other templates). — Coren (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment about the edit filter, but the anon editor certainly makes a valid point with this TfD. That template is thoroughly obsolete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment about the template from me. Given that the matter seems clear and you agree on the substance, I'd be nice if you gave them a hand with the subst:?  :-) — Coren (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Already done, of course. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=505639586"