Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ultraexactzz (talk | contribs)
26,830 edits
→‎Dispute with admin User:Hu12: removing too long post, see user's talk page
Line 424: Line 424:
::::Hu12 hasn't edited since before the ANI notice, so presumably is unaware of this discussion - I agree with Dennis; if, on reading the thread, he agree that he made a mistake (we all do!), then we're done here. If more IDHTing ensues, then we may have a problem, but I can't see Hu12 disagreeing with the clear consensus on polity interpretation above. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] '''[[User talk:Yunshui|雲]]‍[[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|水]]''' 12:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
::::Hu12 hasn't edited since before the ANI notice, so presumably is unaware of this discussion - I agree with Dennis; if, on reading the thread, he agree that he made a mistake (we all do!), then we're done here. If more IDHTing ensues, then we may have a problem, but I can't see Hu12 disagreeing with the clear consensus on polity interpretation above. [[User:Yunshui|Yunshui]] '''[[User talk:Yunshui|雲]]‍[[Special:Contributions/Yunshui|水]]''' 12:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


:::::I received a notice about this ANI on my talk page and wanted to comment. I am the user who cleared his own talk page. It should also be mentioned that the administrator who started this ANI, Boing, blocked me for several hours two days ago for being insulting to some other editors. Although I was unhappy about it, I deserved it and Boing was nothing but kind and professional during his handling of the matter. While I was blocked, Boing even offered to help me on the content issue which triggered my intitial frustration. I was very moved by that and it made me feel terrible about my behavior even more. Anyway, the matter was quickly resolved, Boing unblocked me, and we all moved on. <P> The next day (yesterday), I researched whether I was allowed to clear my talk page. I found [[WP:OWNTALK]] and [[WP:REMOVED]], which made clear that I could do it. So I did. But two minutes later, Hu12, who I'd never met before, reverted it. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:76.189.121.57&diff=516682637&oldid=516682364 reverted it back], citing the two policies, and then left a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=516683026&oldid=516682870 brief message] on Hu12's talk page about it. I saw that Boing had also left a message for Hu12, explaining my right to remove content from talk page. I truly thought that would be the end of it and that Hu12 would just give a quick sorry for the misunderstanding. Instead, he put all the content back on my talk page. Based on Boing verifying what I did was allowed, I reverted Hu12 again. That resulted in Hu12 subsequently creating an archive on my talk page of the removed content, without my knowledge or consent. I knew that the guidelines said that archiving was "preferred," but not required. <P> It was at this point, that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=516712056&oldid=516711407 I left another message for Hu12], telling him that I felt his behavior and actions were verging on harassment. He was ignoring all of the very clear guidelines on this matter and continuing to inappropriately alter my talk page. I asked him to please stop. I referred him again to all the relevant policies that had been posted in the discussion on his talk page, and pointed out that the policy he was referring to was not applicable because, as it stated, it related only to "old" talk pages that had "No edits within the last year" and "No talk page activity within the last year". <P> The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hu12#User_talk:76.189.121.57 discussion on Hu12's talk page] tells the whole story of why we're here discussing this. <P> The concern I have, beyond what I feel is Hu12's inappropriate handling of this matter, is the fact that he is an administrator. So if this talk page-clearing issue comes up with other editors, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't respond to it in the same way he did with me. He has yet to acknowledge he was mistaken about the "rules" on this process and, in fact, still insists that he's right even though two of his fellow administrators, and the guidelines, have indicated otherwise. His overriding, false contention is that unregistered users do not have the same rights as registered users with regard to talk page-clearing (and other processes). Yet several guidelines, beyond WP:REMOVED, showed him he was mistaken, including [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPs_are_human_too#What_an_unregistered_user_can.27t_do What an unregistered user can't do]. <P> As well, please note that in the discussion on Hu12's talk page, he used my block, and the behaviors that led to it, as a partial reason for why he felt it was appropriate not to allow me to clear my talk page. Of course, those things have absolutely nothing to do with talk page-clearing guidelines. That is why I said to him, "By the way, the fact that Boing blocked me for several hours yesterday, and the reasons why, have absolutely nothing to do with this policy issue. So I am perplexed as to why you, especially as an administrator, would choose to make it part of this discussion."[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hu12&diff=516692204&oldid=516688676] <P> Finally, with regard to Hu12's incivility claim against Boing, who told Hu12 to "stop fucking around" with my talk page, <b>please</b> understand that that one comment was near the end of a very long discussion in which Hu12 refused to acknowledge and accept the relevant guidelines, and had already removed the contents from my talk page and then created the archive without asking me about it. And Boing has already apologized for that quick moment of frustration when he said, "I'm happy to admit to frustration and a little anger." As you'll see from the discussion, it was one quick lapse after being very reasonable and more-than-patient for a long time. But as someone who was blocked by Boing and went through an ongoing discussion with him about it, I think I have some credibility in saying that he's an excellent administrator who treats others with respect. I'm not sure I deserved the kindness he gave me during my block, but he did it anyway because apparently that's just the type of guy he is. In this case with Hu12, it simply got to the point where Hu12 was absolutely refusing to listen to reason after a very lengthy discussion, and Boing finally just said to himself that this is enough, this needs to stop. And so that was his way of getting that message across to Hu12 in two words. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.121.57|76.189.121.57]] ([[User talk:76.189.121.57|talk]]) 15:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


*This seems like one of those signature Wikipedia arguments, over something incredibly trivial and minor in the grand scheme of things, but which quickly escalates to shenanigans and anger. I know Hu12 to be a reasonable editor and admin, so I reserve judgement until they comment... but I don't see anything that would justify their position. I hope that this can be resolved with a simple trout. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
*This seems like one of those signature Wikipedia arguments, over something incredibly trivial and minor in the grand scheme of things, but which quickly escalates to shenanigans and anger. I know Hu12 to be a reasonable editor and admin, so I reserve judgement until they comment... but I don't see anything that would justify their position. I hope that this can be resolved with a simple trout. [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:53, 9 October 2012

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it. —Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Poking this again - we definitely need someone uninvolved to take a look at this and figure out the most appropriate path forward. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues

      (Initiated 94 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

      (Initiated 74 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 74 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Gaza_Health_Ministry_qualifier

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Benevolent_dictatorship#Should_this_page_contain_examples?_#2

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Socialist Alliance (Australia)#RFC - Is Marxism at times considered an ideology and if so, does it fall within Socialist Alliance's ideology?

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#RFC Proposal: Kamala Harris as "border czar" in the Biden administration

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on first sentence

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 5 August 2024) - Discussion is a month old and appears to have run its course. A consensus may have emerged but not a snow close so needs a kind uninvoled editor please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

      (Initiated 23 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:War crimes in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#RfC on the inclusion of alleged Ukrainian misuse of civilian infrastructure for military operations

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 24 July 2024) Discussion slowed. Last comment 13 August 2024. Moderately complex RfC with multiple options. Thank you in advance to the closer. JDiala (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
      CfD 0 0 20 0 20
      TfD 0 1 11 0 12
      MfD 0 0 6 0 6
      FfD 0 0 5 0 5
      RfD 0 0 81 0 81
      AfD 0 0 15 0 15

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Raymoo

      (Initiated 68 days ago on 28 June 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#North West Leicestershire by-election, 2010

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 11 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Imperial Royalty

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Template:Empty-warn

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 20 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15#Toad Town

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 23 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 17#Category:Discotek Media

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 15

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 15 August 2024) Several discussion need closing on the currently oldest active RfD daily subpage. Experienced discussion closers are invited to help with the backlog of discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:NASCAR by year

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 19 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Template:Latvia-edu-stub

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 20#Category:Non-fiction books about the African-American civil rights movement

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 20 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Antisemitism in the United States#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 319 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 122 days ago on 5 May 2024) Discussion went on for 3 months and seems to have stalled. 35.0.62.211 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Cartoon_image_near_lead

      (Initiated 120 days ago on 7 May 2024) 34 comments, 17 people in discussion. Discussion has mostly died down. Not the most monumental of issues, but closure would be good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 99 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

      (Initiated 98 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 88 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Page size

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 30 June 2024) Proposal to split RS/PS. Discussion has died down. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Al-Tabaeen_school_attack#Requested_move_10_August_2024

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 10 August 2024) - I believe consensus is relatively clear, but given the contentious overarching topic I also believe an uninvolved closer would be appreciated. Thanks in advance! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Southeastern_(train_operating_company,_2006–2021)#Requested_move_16_August_2024

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 16 August 2024) I planned to move this to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company). However, that's been reverted as "an undiscussed move" and discussion has died down and I have withdrawn the plan to move it to that name. I am also requesting for it to be moved back to Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company) because it was moved to Southeastern_(train_operating_company,_2006–2021) in Feb 2024 for no apparent reason and given the number of moves, its safe to say it needs to be moved back to the stable title per WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SVTRT. Same applies to Thameslink_(train_operating_company,_1997–2006) JuniperChill (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by FOARP. SilverLocust 💬 05:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Incidents at Six Flags parks#Merge Proposal

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 18 July 2024)I'm requesting that the discusion reguarding the merger being being discussed be closed so that the pages may be merged as the proposed merger is unlikely to controversial.DisneyAviationRollerCoasterEnthusiast (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Can an IP User talk page be used to store a "userfy" version of an article under AfD?

      This has already played out with all the necessary actions, with the original question being moot since it wasn't really an IP talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The IP talk page User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 is being used by the IP to store a "userfied" version of an article up for AfD. Is that appropriate? Note also that the article under consideration is about an AT&T product line and the IP is registered to AT&T. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Note that this is the talkpage for a user called IP 12.153.112.21 (talk · contribs) - it's not the IP talk page itself, which is User talk:12.153.112.21. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      oh, my bad. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So the user is still allowed to edit through the real open IP and use the improperly named user account talk page as a storage facility for their work? (as they did today [1]) -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (EC with below) I don't see any problem with them editing under their IP, the primary reason the user seems to have been blocked was because of the username which is confusingly similar to an IP (as this thread shows) which is forbidden under the username policy. Okay their requests for unblock were hardly productive but I wouldn't say they merit a block of the IP unless they continue in that vein. However it does seem inappropriate to use a blocked user's user or talk page in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'm presuming the IP isn't doing anything else bad Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      They're socking, ip address should be blocked. Nobody Ent 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Are they doing anything bad to our articles? If not, leave them alone. It is not socking to edit with an IP if a username is blocked for being a bad username. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      That IP is actually registered to the Answer Group (Outsourced call center --- I used to work for them ).  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      No opinion about the possible socking and other possible misconduct but IP userspace exists just like any other userspace and working on article drafts in it (either pre-submission or after afd userfication) seems perfectly fine to me. As with anyone else, per WP:WEBHOST, the page shouldn't stay unless there's reasonable activity towards bringing it up to standards. I do remember seeing that username (or something like it) in the past. I don't have much opinion of the practice. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sloppy admin work all around here. The admin who blocked the account failed to leave any notice on their talk page. The admin who blocked the IP for socking failed to notice the account was soft blocked for a username violation, which means the blocking admin deliberately left open the option to just create another account or use an IP. I have therefore undone the block.
      As to the question that opened this thread, I am not aware of any prohibition on an IP using having a userfied copy of an article. Common sense and AGD would seem to indicate it is perfectly ok so long as no other policies are being violated. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for your attention Beeblebrox! I appreciate the opportunity to work out the existent content dispute on its own merits rather than to be precluded from a voice in the discussion. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't suppose you'd care to explain why you deleted Kosh's post above when you made your last posting? [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with AndyTheGrump here. I actually noticed the block and as per my earlier comment, I didn't think it was a good block, but I didn't say anything because it seemed your behaviour was fairly borderline with the silly username change requests and the apparent edit warring and ill consider comments, as highlighted on your talk page Deleting the comment here simply reenforced that view and suggests you're only a very short leash, if any remains. While WP:OUTING is forbidden, noting stuff about an IP based solely on a whois of the IP is not considered outing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In retrospect, I agree with Floquenbeam and possibly others that the original comment was not appropriate because of the inclusion of speculative information. I had some concerns of this at the time and should have voiced them. While I don't know if removal of the whole comment was the best way to deal with it (I stick with my view that the WHOIS information is not generally considered outing), I can see it may have been unclear to the IP. So on this particular issue, I can't fault the IP and apologise for my earlier comments. Nil Einne (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bad unblock IP was edit warring, creating a duplicate name, inserted the soon-to-be afd'd page on that page and was blocked appropriately. Sorry, that was sloppy admin work.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  16:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, the IP has been edit-warring for some time. I have reported them to AIV several times (one report AIV report pending) but to no avail. I have even gone so far as to call the person's place of work (The Answer Group) to stop the user from editing. I recommend the 31 hour block be put back in place for "Disruptive Editing" and if this continues, a longer place put in place along with a range block (very limited collaterial damage). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Good unblock The block reason was clearly invalid, and so it should have been undone. That there was potentially another good reason for blocking not mentioned in the block log or block notice doesn't change that. At this point I think we should limit further sanctions to any conduct that occurred or occurs after the unblock. Monty845 17:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The removed comment in question did more than "noting stuff about an IP based solely on a whois". My last request for oversight has been granted and I would appreciate editors waiting on a response on this one as well. If, however, I am mistaken in my understanding of WP policy, I would appreciate being notified in a collegial discussion rather than by "bad block". Thank you. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would strongly oppose any use of oversight for a WhoIs of an IP, especially when the user has admitted on their conflict of interest on their talk page. So a WhoIs report saying that they work for a company that AT%T outsources to, is that "outing" in anyway. The IP is registered to the company, not the user using it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


      ::::: IP You're not being outed. You're using an IP address , and your companies name is listed on your wiki page as of this second, and I didn't even put it up to begin with. By the way, removing my comment is a violation of TPO. Yes, I hear you, but have someone else remove it not you. I've been in a similar situation, and I was counseled by a A very well respected admim that I need to not remove , collapse or censure anything related to or me, but rather, call notice to it ( civily) then allow another user to handle it.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  18:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

      • For the record the blocking admin has agreed that they were in error and thanked me for correcting it. [3]
      Also for the record WHOIS reports are very public, easily accessible information and as an oversighter I can guarantee you right now that it will not be suppressed. if you don't want to reveal your IP use an account, as in, an account not named for the IP it is using, which makes the whole idea of now crying foul that privacy was violated laughable. I suggest all parties just walk away from this situation, there is nothing more to do here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Bad unblock, the user was socking.

      • Socking is the use of alternate account to avoid a sanction.
      • The user name "IP 12.153.112.21" is disruptive because it is easily confused with an ip editor 12.153.112.21; accordingly the account was blocked.
      • By posting on the page User talk:IP 12.153.112.21 the user used an alternate (ip) account to avoid a sanction -- use of the user name "IP 12.153.112.21." (The fact that the OP of this thread, an experienced Wikipedian, thought it was an IP talk page is prima facie evidence of that it's confusing.)
      • Since both elements of one sockpuppetry definition a) alternate account and b) disruptive use of misleading account name are present, the user was, in fact, socking.

      As an analogy consider if I was topic banned from AN for being annoyingly right all the time. If I edited as an ip to correct a spelling error on Print butter, that would not be socking, but if corrected the same spelling error on AN it would be socking. Likewise, the fact the editor edited as ip does not make it socking, but the continued use of a misleading account name, albeit through editing its talk page rather then editing with it, is socking. Nobody Ent 21:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Was it intentionally disruptive? Ryan Vesey 21:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Did the user know about the existing IP block, or would a reasonable person have known about it? If so, then they intended to dodge it using the account. There is clear intent to avoid an existing block here. --Jayron32 21:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, they had placed 2 unblock name change requests that were denied and were posting to the page with those block notices as of this morning including specific page mark up to collapse those block notices. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Back up a minute. There seems to be some confusion as to the sequence of events. The named account with IP-like name was issued a username only soft block over a week ago. That explicitly leaves open the option of continuing to edit under a non-infringing identity, either a new username or as an IP. That they did so when their terrible suggestions for new usernames was were rightfully declined does not constitute socking as the blocking admin did not elect to autoblock the underlying IP when issuing the initial block. It's just not socking. It also seems that other behaviors have led this to now be under discussion at ANI, so this thread can be closed and discussion should move over there if it needs to continue. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not confused. Meaning depends on context. Why were they blocked, and did the ip editing continue the same disruption (yes)? Under the circumstances, if the ip account had edited pretty another other page, it would've have been socking, but they continued the essential part of the behavior that was disruptive. You're asserting not socking from a bureaucratic letter of the law perspective. Nobody Ent 23:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why were they blocked? How many times need this be explained? The named account was soft blocked for a username violation. By editing as an actual IP they were manifestly not repeating the behavior that led to the block. It really is as simple as that despite your attempts to make it complicated. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Subpages

      The IP should take the userfied draft to AFC. This is the main reason wp:afc started. No one can userfy an article draft to their talk page but instead to a sub-userpage. An IP can not make a sub-page as far as I understand. (this is also why we have public wp:sandbox) 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, that's not the case. I just now logged out and created two pages: User talk:98.223.196.72 and User talk:98.223.196.72/test. Therefore, it's inappropriate to host this article on the main talk page, simply because the IP can create it as a subpage. Of course, this isn't by itself reason for sanction, since we can't expect the IP to know about subpages. Best solution in my mind is to say "hey, this isn't the best place for this content; please move it to a subpage" and to give directions on how to do that. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Erm, is it really considered acceptable for Neutralhomer to phone 12.153.112.21's place of work, as he admits to doing when he didn't get his desired result at AIV? I was under the impression that that sort of behavior was deeply frowned upon. --92.2.82.159 (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It is the sort of thing that is usually only done in response to long term abuse, it was way over the top to take such an action in this case as far as I can see. For some reason there seem to be few users who are downright desperate to find any way they can to get this person into some kind of trouble. I don't really know why that is but it is getting pretty ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems Neutralhomer has also said at the List of AT&T U-verse channels talk page "I spoke with a supervisor there and they are looking into the matter, so I would get off the internet and get back to work while you still have a job." That sounds a threat to 12.153.112.21 employment and therefore a personal attack. Powergate92Talk 02:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, one, I was given permission at the AfD for the "List of AT&T U-verse channels" page for the page to be moved to my userspace after deletion. It wasn't, it was moved to 12.153.112.21's page, I copy/pasted it and moved it (as is) to my userspace per the approval. Since the AfD opened the door for other AfDs for other "List of <company> channels" pages, I copy/pasted others in response of the forthcoming AfDs. None of the pages were under CC-By-SA-3.0 and are in Wikipedia userspace per admin approval.
      As for calling 12.153.112.21 place of employment, if he is still employed, then it didn't have the desired effect...which was to have him stop vandalizing Wikipedia. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Everything on Wikipedia is released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License. See the bottom of the page where it says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details." Also see Wikipedia's copyright policy.With that, User:Neutralhomer/List of AT&T U-verse Channels needs to have attribution. Powergate92Talk 04:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Since I was given permission by two seperate admins to have the pages in my userspace, it's a moot point. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have indeffed editors in the past for phoning people's place of business for this exact same purpose. Such action is 100% inexcusable from an editor. NH - I'm usually on your side, but you know far better than do have done such a thing. I'm utterly shocked dangerouspanda 11:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have indefinitely blocked User:Neutralhomer for the above reported off-wiki harassment. Explanation is at User talk:Neutralhomer#Indefinite block for severe off-wiki harassment. As usual, feel free to change, reduce or overturn the block if there is consensus to do so or if the user gives reason to do so. Fram (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      To prevent meatball:ForestFires, please centralize any discussion to Neutralhomer's talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 12:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Is the issue of contacting the organisation behind the IP clarified anywhere? I've contacted a couple of schools in the past where I thought they'd like to know what was going on, and I'm sure I've seen somewhere that that sort of contact is ok. Of course, it depends upon the context and I am not making any comments on Neutralhomer's contact as I've not looked into the details. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, there is a difference between getting some schoolkid reprimanded for vandalizing Wikipedia and trying to get somebody sacked from their job. There is, even more crucially, a difference between defending the project against vandalism and trying to get the upper hand in a content dispute (no matter how misguided or otherwise disruptive the other party is.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly. This behaviour is disgusting - I call for a community ban for Neutralhomer. This isn't his first serious offence, and the fact that he still continues doing seriously wrong stuff after two indef blocks is a demonstration of consistently poor judgement. Max Semenik (talk) 13:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have declined the unblock request. GiantSnowman 13:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've declined a second one. --Jayron32 13:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Belated thanks particularly to Beeblebrox and Fram even if you only considered this your duty. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      There's not going to be a consensus for a community ban, nor is any admin going to be dumb enough to unblock, so we can all move on. WilyD 21:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      User:Neutralhomer community ban proposal

      MaxSem called, above, for a community ban. I've seen a lot of troublesome users at Wikipedia receive blocks and bans down the years, but I'm struggling to think of many incidents of harrassment that go as far as phoning someone's employer. NH's words at the time (onwiki) strongly suggest he was looking for the IP to lose their job, but even if I accept his statement that he merely wanted the user's internet privileges suspended, this is egregious harrassment from a user with a long blocklog. I rarely agree to community ban proposals - this time, I support it. --Dweller (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support. Quite frankly, this crosses a line. The last time I saw someone doing something this reprehensible was Eecoleetage, and we know what happened to him. I'm not hearing "I know what I did was wrong, give me another shot" - I'm hearing "okay, okay, I won't call this user again, are you happy now?" with tinges of "you can't block me because other than this I do good work". Ironholds (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Currently undecided. I don't plan to wade deeply into this or engage in a drawn out debate. I respect Homer, think he probably regrets his actions and think a community ban is probably a little much. There is a single thing though that he has said more than once that does bother me though. NH has said "people shouldn't be editing from work" in one form or another a couple of times. To be blunt, that's just none of his business. That is solely between the editor, their employer and their IT dept, not the time management police. I would like to see NH either clarify or retract that premise. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. I am a fairly tolerant person on Wikipedia, and I believe in giving many second chances for a wide range of behaviors, especially when a person is genuinely contrite. However, this crosses the line for me. The fact that someone would take a dispute like this, and especially such an inconsequential dispute as whether or not a list of TV channels should be included on Wikipedia, and would pursue it to the point of calling a person's workplace with the intent of having them sanctioned by their employers is so beyond the pale that it boggles the mind. That anyone would even consider such an action as appropriate in the first place is a clear indication that they have no business at Wikipedia in any form. If someone would choose to do that, I stop trusting any assurances they make going forward. This whole thing stops being a game when someone's livelihood is threatened in this way, and Wikipedia needs to take a hard stance on something like this. Discussions can get heated on-wiki, and I can forgive a lot, but someone who is willing to go to this length over something so inconsequential is clearly not to be trusted. Of course, now that he realizes he's going to be banned, he's backpedalling like crazy and trying to assure us it won't happen again. Sorry, no, this is not like cussing someone out, or calling them a bad name, or anything like that. This raises it to another level, and it cannot be allowed to pass with a "sorry, my bad, I won't do it again!" Just no. --Jayron32 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Support Oppose - the action itself was abhorrent, the unblock requests were weak, and the long block log shows that, despite the good work this editor can do, they cannot function as part of the community when things don't go their way. However, as others below have said, a community ban may be a slight over-reaction. I would insread prefer to see an indefinite block, until as such time NH can provide his worth again. GiantSnowman 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) (edit conflict) Support. Harassment of this sort is utterly unacceptable and, given NH's history of problematic behaviour, inexcusable. His unblock requests, as Ironholds notes, don't inspire any confidence. A user willing to take things this far is a hazard to the community. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support An enormous block log, many of which are for similar battleground behaviour, suggests an unwillingness or inability to edit as part of the community. Neutralhomer's constructive edits (of which there are many) don't balance out the problems caused by this sort of attitude. The two unblock requests, based as they were on promises not to interact with one specific editor, fail to address the underlying issue. Although it will be a shame to lose him, Neutralhomer has had more than enough rope by this point; this chilling off-wiki harassment would be solid grounds for a ban on its own, but combined with his history... a ban is the only sensible solution here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Snitching to a user's employer because of an apparent content dispute is a bright-line offense. I would support a community ban for ANY editor who did this. Skinwalker (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose: This is way overblown. If we're going to ban folks because they contact owners of IPs who are "misbehaving" on Wikipedia, then we have no business having templates like {{Shared IP corp}}. The template says "In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation." So we want to ban the guy for doing exactly what the template says we may do? There are plenty of other issues with this editor, but this is the wrong reason to ban the guy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict × 1000) Without commenting on the community ban proposal, the {{Shared IP corp}} and related templates are there so editors can contact the owner of the IP to complain about vandalism. They aren't there to call an employer because you are in a content dispute with the user. The chilling effects created by "I can phone your employer if you disagree with me" are the same as or worse than "I will sue you unless you agree with me." Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strongest possible oppose Frankly, what Neutralhomer did was stupid to the umpteenth degree and he deserves an indefinite block for it, at least until we feel like he's ready to come pack without the problem, but a community ban is entirely different. A community ban says "We don't want you anymore and you shouldn't can't be part of this community". While his action was terrible, I believe a community ban is a great overreaction. Ryan Vesey 14:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Neutralhomer's behaviour was untenable, and if you read his appeal against the block and his subsequent talk page comments, he is still trying to justify his actions by claiming that he "was trying to stop vandalism". That he cannot grasp the elementary tenets of WP:VANDAL after all this time suggests to me that he simply isn't competent to edit Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Calm down. everyone. He made a mistake; he needs to clear that up by clearly stating that it simply will not happen again. Mebbe a mentor. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Trying to get someone sacked because you a) think you have the moral right to decide where and when that editor can contribute and b) are in a content dispute with said editor is so far beyond acceptable behaviour that I'm struggling to articulate how unacceptable that is. I'm just shaking my head at some of the oppose comments trying to make this sound somehow understandable. Spartaz Humbug! 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absurd I was actually in the middle of emailing Homer when this came across my talk page. What Homer did was stupid. Banning him because of it is not only over the top, but WP:POINTed and arguably more extreme. He overreacted and basically screwed up royally. How is what we are proposing any different? How is banning going to prevent damage? How is this anything more than patting ourselves on our backs at how clever and just we are? No, banning isn't needed. The block certainly was, and some education and a clear path forward is needed, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon by overreacting here. Everyone should just drop this and let the people on the talk page deal with it in a calm, collected and respectable manner. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as moral support, at least. I'm shocked, I have to say. Homer and me go way back, and to say we didn't start off as friends is an understatement. I have come to appreciate him and like him, though I think it's fair to say I've criticized him often enough for his occasional outbursts (which I think have certainly lessened in recent years). I don't know what came over him: of course calling someone's boss is unacceptable. Well, I do know, I think, what came over him--rage. Which I thought he was managing pretty well. What comes after is partly shame, IMO, hence the claim of stopping vandalism. To err is human, and a ban (I'm happy to see someone, above, agrees with me) is too much. Oh, Andy, I find it difficult to accept statements about basic Wikipedia tenets from you sitting atop a moral stallion--but that's in passing. Give Homer a break, even if an indefinite one with the standard offer attached. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I too am uncomfortable with his behavior, however it certainly does not rise to the level of deserving a community ban. Let the process play out through normal unblock requests. Community bans are the ultimate sanction Wikipedia can apply and we are far to quick to call for them. Monty845 15:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose The guy made a mistake, has fessed up and apologized and promised not to do it again. Whatever happened to the quality of mercy not being strained? Keep the block if you will (though, at this point does it really harm Wikipedia to unblock him?) but a community ban? Way overreaction, imo. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose This is too extreme. Yes, we've had problems with this editor, but it's not as though he hasn't made some good contributions or even that he doesn't recognise what he did was wrong. I don't think he's going to do this again - and if he does then I'd probably support a ban. But not now, I don't see any harm in an unblock. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Nothing productive to be gained at this point. But I will say I'm very shaken by this and would not intercede if similar behavior recurs. Going outside the playground to settle scores is not on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - overkill. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support community ban, indefinite block, whatever you want to call it. Neutralhomer has a long history of getting into disputes with other users and then becoming obsessive about that person, leading to personal attacks and harassment. This particular incident crossed a very serious line. The comments that "oh well, he did an oopsie but promises not to do it again" understate both the nature of the incident and the chronic problems with this editor over the years. – Steel 15:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The lack of comments advocating an immediate unblock tells you we take this seriously. But that we want it to be in the area of a negotiated return, if possible, rather than having discretion taken out of the hands of admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Wehwalt, you were proposed somewhere above as a mentor. How do you feel about that? Drmies (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Reluctant. I'd have to see what was involved, and what NH was willing to undertake. I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not going to commit myself blindly.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this discussion has been framed in a rather unhelpful way, with community ban on one side and all other responses on the other side, where some are downplaying the significance of these events and suggest unblocking now. A substantial number want to keep the indefinite block in place without a formal ban and my comment does not apply to this category of opposers. – Steel 17:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I think most of us agree that block was well deserved and shouldn't be lifted without a clear path forward, at least from what I see. What he did was a perfect reason for an indef block, until he can demonstrate sufficient clue. He is part way there. But that is different than a ban, which means "you are no longer worth the effort, you are a burden on the community with virtually no redeeming qualities". I've voted for bans before when that was the case, but this isn't that case here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To make it clear: I strongly support the block. I just think there is the chance of a path back, but the ball is squarely in Neutralhomer's court to propose the path. That being said, I think the lesson will be lost unless there's some time blocked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And possibly some editing restrictions installed, maybe the TV area and 1RR, or both. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. The behaviour was wrong, but the editor does not appear to be irredeemably bad. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - seems counterproductive and overkill at this point. – Connormah (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose So far as I can see, what he did was wrong, but I feel he did it for the good of Wikipedia as he saw it at that moment. If he does it again (which I very much doubt), then he'd be showing that he didn't understand what was wrong with it (but I think he does now). I would probably support a timed but not indefinite ban then. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Appalling behaviour from Neutralhomer? Yes. Community ban needed? No. Neutralhomer overreacted badly, but we'll only compound that if we respond with a similarly emotional overreaction. The current block is the appropriate response, and we should not rule out a negotiated return. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I know that Homer certainly wouldn't count me among his circle of friends, but I do feel the need to state that a community ban is far too excessive here. I am mindful of his block log, but it's been quite a while since the last time Homer got himself blocked and it is apparent he has become mellower over time. I've read the exchanges on his talk page, and I do see that he's trying hard to satisfy the demands for apologies and promises that have been presented to him. It's not easy to do that, particularly when you are stressed, so I hope folks will cut him some slack. His heart is in the right place; he's had a very severe shock from this discussion; I have no doubt he'll stay "on the rails" for a long time now. We don't need a community ban to remove a problem that has now ceased to exist. --RexxS (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • support block/oppose ban For some reason Homer and one or two other users seems to be desperate to find anything they could to get leverage on the user at the other end of this. In his zeal for finding some way to "win" this content dispute by any means necessary, he went way over the line and did something unbelievably crass and stupid. For a minute there he tried to tap dance around that fact and make it out as if it was not a big deal. He appears now to understand the reality of the situation and to honestly regret this monumental lapse in judgement. I think he needs a break from WP and WP needs a break from him, but just a break, not a ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • support block/oppose ban per Beeblebrox. If NH makes firm commitment to never, ever to do that again, support reducing block to a period not less than week. (Although WP as a community may have occasion to contact an IP owner, NH's lack of judgement should prohibit them from ever unilaterally making that decision again.) Nobody Ent 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I've been trying to assume good faith and keep things civility with Neutralhomer even with are recent disagreements. However it's getting a bit hard to assume good faith in him when he is not assuming good faith in others as he did in this case. Finding that he called someone's employer over a content dispute is where I see him crosses the line with civility. Per AndyTheGrump comment above he does not seem to understand the different between WP:Vandalism and a content dispute. With that, I think the block should be continued until he gets a better understanding of WP:Assume good faith, WP:Civility, and WP:Vandalism. However, I don't think a ban is needed right now, if he were to do it again than I support a ban. Powergate92Talk 17:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose ban, support block Several years ago I and a few other editors were sort of informal mentors for NH. I stuck my neck out for him then, and he rewarded my trust. I wish he'd remembered the advice offered then: turn off the computer and walk away. There are still plenty of people he could have consulted if he needed a reality check. I'm very disappointed, and I believe NH needs some space between him and WP for a while, but I don't see a ban as useful or necessary. Acroterion (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I don't think that community ban is needed in this stage.He had his nose clean for more then an year also he was a good editor--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Anyone is free to make use of abuse@hostingprovider.com or other means of ISP contact regarding a problematic IP user as they see fit. If someone does not want this information available, make an account. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral ban/support strong sanction: I don't know if a community ban is the solution, but this has to be addressed in the strongest possible terms to make it clear that this simply should not be done, it's only one step down from a physical threat of harm! Things going off-wiki like this open up legal worries for both the perpetrator and for wikipedia Had someone done this to me (though luckily I am self-employed), unless they were someone I already "knew" off-wiki and could manage myself on my own, I would probably call law enforcement and possibly try to get them criminally charged for something like stalking or harassment, or perhaps some charge related to abuse of a telephone per FCC regs. If it were a fellow US Citizen, they could wind up with the feds at their door, frankly. My view is that the dramah that happens on-wiki stays on-wiki. You don't go off-wiki except if there is some concern with something like safety, danger of actual harm, or perhaps identity theft (someone claiming to be a famous person, but isn't that person, for example, might want to alert the real individual in some fashion). Otherwise, communication should not be made with third parties without the consent of all involved and you most certainly do not use a wikipedia disagreement to harass someone in real life. This concerns me deeply. Montanabw(talk) 18:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Adding WP US to a talkpage

      Unless the activity of a single tagging editor warrants WP:ANI action, the decisions of what is or isn't tagged is a decision of the Project themselves, not the admin corp. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      moved from Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

      Hello. I have been adding the tag of WikiProject United States to all pages related to the US, including American citizens. User:Elizium23 thinks this is "overzealous tagging", but the same applies to WikiProject Biography for example--all human beings are tagged under this project. Similarly, all French citizens are tagged under WikiProject France, etc. We have discussed this on your project's talkpage but have come to no conclusion: [4]. Another Wikipedian, User:Kumioko agreed with me about tagging American citizens under WP US. I also don't always have time to assess the article, but as Wikipedia is a work in progress and a collaborative effort, I assume someone else will do the rest of the work whenever they can. However, it's a complete waste of everyone's time, and will lead to Wikipedia's undoing if work gets deleted, for example here: [5]. Notice that I suggested tagging David Ayer, who just produced End of Watch on the WP US talkpage, and then another user, User:Ottawahitech, did it: [6]. I seem to be vindicated in what I'm doing, but again, I won't do it if my work is undone/reverted. I also can't ask for permission every time I see an American citizen's page, so we need to come to an agreement. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WikiProjects each have their own criteria for determining what falls within the scope of the project, so it's not really likely that you will receive an admin response here that will enforce a decision that benefits anyone in this matter. See Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles, with regards to tagging articles. However, the context of that relates more to removing banners of a project you're not a member of. But if you are simply flying around Wiki tagging a whole load of articles without assessing them, and this is resulting in backlogs which other members are begrudgingly having to work through, then it is probably better not to engage in this, unless you are assessing them yourself as you tag. There's nothing to be gained by a wikiproject tagging articles without assessing grade, importance and task forces – grading helps editors determine what the current quality is at, incase they want to improve it. Also, tagging each and every person just because they're a "U.S. citizen" may be overdoing it somewhat. From what I gather, that project is more about the U.S. as a country, so unless a citizen has had a notable impact on U.S. culture, such as presidents, civil rights leaders, moguls, celebrities, military figures, notorious criminals/gangsters, etc, then it's probably best left for WikiProject Biography. Just because a man is U.S. born and notable for something to warrant a page, let's say a celebrity chef, for example, doesn't necessarily mean they've had a huge impact on American society and that project members need to monitor and develop that page.. biographers are best suited to such tasks. Tagging based solely on national identity is bound to pose problems with some members, which is why common sense seems better and it is probably best only to tag those of significant cultural importance. We're getting to the stage where a lot of Public Relations groups are creating articles for barely-known individuals, businesses, etc, as a means of advertising. Do you really want to tag every average Joe, just because they're American, and are only notable because of a few questionable mentions in a newspaper? How about popular American YouTubers.. are they worth tagging as "U.S." given that it's hardly likely they affect U.S. culture at all, they're just entertaining? You should consider a lot more than "citizenship" alone before tagging anyone, or WikiProjects become bogged down, members become confused, and they start to drift away out of frustration because the scope is losing it's focus. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't find the specific policy/guideline/whatever reference for this, but IIRC the policy/guideline/whatever is "Don't remove Wikiproject tags. Period". Or pretty close to that. The reason is that Wikiproject tags are placed by the projects to indicate articles that people who have an interest in that project may also want to edit. Tagging the talk page is not an issue of identifying the subject as being anything OTHER than something that people who use the Wikiproject may be interested it. As a classic example, Talk:Nazism is tagged as being part of "WikiProject Jewish history", not because the Nazis were particularly nice to Jewish people, but because people working on Jewish history have an interest in Naziism, broadly speaking. Likewise with any project: It's up to people interested in the project to decide what is, and is not, under their interest, which broadly means don't take down other people's tags. --Jayron32 23:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's the last sentence of the first paragraph of Wikipedia:WikiProject coordination#WikiProjects do not own articles – however, whilst you shouldn't remove other project's banners, you can remove your own, especially if the banner seems superfluous. e.g. there must be thousands of animals indigenous to the U.S. but they don't all need the "U.S." banner when there are animal and wildlife wikiprojects better suited to developing them. A culturally important animal like the Buffalo (American Bison) might warrant tagging, but not each and every frog, ant, fish and beast that ever walked. I think that's the point some of the members are missing, whilst others are completely aware of it. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On the other hand though, I've seen WPUS tags added to the talk pages of Wikipedia-space pages belonging to other WikiProjects, which is a bit much. I've also seen WPUS tag every possible article in sight, and such obnoxious tagging should be reverted. --Rschen7754 23:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, you wouldn't tag "The Bible" as "U.S." just because America has religion would you? Wouldn't tag a chemical as "U.S." just because it was discovered by an American scientist? There has to be limits to prevent projects being flooded with nonsense. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 23:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      WPUS should tag whichever articles they're prepared to support, just like any other WikiProject. Last I checked, they had tagged only 10% the number of articles that WPBIO supports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec)I'm a member of WikiProject United States, and I don't tag much for it. I think WPUS should focus on American biography, geography, and history. Now that's already thousands and thousands of articles pbp 00:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You may have a major point there. The larger the project, the more fragmented the interests of the participants. Let me ask a question, if you have a project that covers 10% of the encyclopedia, what are the chances that 50% of the participants have enough of a common interest to focus on improving a significant number of articles? I also accept that at some point a project can also be too small. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @WhatamIdoing? Since when was Wiki a competitive arena to see who could tag more articles? Last I knew there were more than 6 billion people in the world. Are there more than 6 billion items that represent U.S. culture? That kind of attitude is what leads to project mis-management and why so many are over-strained. No sensibe Wikiproject just tags "what they're prepared to support" willy-nilly, they define a scope in order to prevent the wrong types of articles being tagged because they're too loosely related. As is clearly happening at project U.S. where members are evidently complaining about it. If bog-paper had been invented in the U.S. would you tag that? The LGBT flag was designed in San Francisco, why not tag that too if you think U.S. could do better than the LGBT project, simply because it's "American"? Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That kind of sums up why I was not in favor of them using their project tag to include some projects I work on. While WPUS may have more eyes, that does not mean it is better. I think time has shown that tagging appears to be more important then working on the articles already tagged. Using WPBIO as a comparison, bodes poorly for any project since most of those articles need work and assessment. Maybe those two make the point that projects need to be smaller to be effective. I did make a suggestion for some kind of cooperative tagging to say that smaller projects were by default willing to work with WPUS, but that went no where. Also, can editors be aware of the indent with replies? It's getting hard to figure out where some of the comments belong. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I am not suggesting taking all these things. We have a problem however regarding tagging (or not) pages of American citizens...actually, mostly American actors and American movies. I don't see why those two things shouldn't get tagged. American actors for example are 1) American citizens 2)represent the US on the Big Screen (see soft power). Similarly American businessmen completely fall into the purview of the wikiproject I think. I however don't want to add tags if they get removed as it happened a few days ago.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Because, you're not tagging it because "he's an American guy" or "this is an American film", you're tagging it because "we can develop and maintain this article, as it represents the U.S. entire". John Wayne, big pro-American guy, very notable - tag him. His film Stagecoach, made in America, set in America, but it hardly represents the U.S., so it's best tagged by Project Films and Project Westerns whose members have more interest in such things. WikiProject's are a bit like categories, you've got to know what represents the parent "U.S." and what is secondary, and can be managed by other projects whose scope is more focused. Otherwise we just end up with a ton of over-tagged articles, which is detrimental to the purpose of having projects to focus on key articles. Your argument is basically "tag it because it's American", without even considering how it represents America. Which will simply result in the project becoming a nationalistic hat-collector project, rather than one that aims to develop and maintain articles, that focus on U.S. values. Not every "made in America" film, kids programme, B movie actor, porn star, stunt man, and such is going to matter an iota to the majority of the U.S., so they get tagged and... nothing ever becomes of it. Same with actors.. are you going to tag every U.S. child actor who had a few cameo appearances? e.g. Peter Ostrum? Every tacky second-rate B-movie, American album, and soundtrack? Given that the purpose of Wiki is to create and maintain an encyclopedia, how does is benefit from project U.S. tagging every hint of America in sight? It seems impractical.. worse when an article is tagged with U.S. / their home U.S. State / Bio / Film and so on.. at this rate we'll be tagging every known gay person with LGBT, every religious person with Christian, Jewism or Islamic, until we can't move for tags. That's why it's over-zealous to turn project U.S. into a stereotype project that "land grabs" every article it can lay its eyes on. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you've forgotten one quintessential thing: priority. Generally speaking, projects focus on improving their top (~1%) or high (~10%) articles. I'm fine with those priorities being distributed across a wide variety of fields (particularly the trio I mentioned above). In practice, an article being tagged as low-importance by a WikiProject doesn't really mean anything, on the U.S. project or any other project. But, as I said, I don't tag much for WikiProject U.S.; when I do, I tag something that would likely be mid-priority or higher. I do reassess existing tags, however pbp 18:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a very good point. For all but the smallest of projects, tagging an article with the lowest priority level (or which would be the lowest priority level if the tagger bothered to assess it) is a waste of time - especially if the article's already been tagged by another project. The only exception is WPBIO, because it gives maintenance categories and template notices relating to WP:BLP. Rd232 talk 19:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      FYI Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. It is 100% up to the participants in the WikiProject. There is no rule that they be big enough to work on everything. WikiProject Medicine isn't going to work on every single article within its scope this year, but I doubt that any of you believe that several thousand rare genetic disorders and rare cancers should be excluded from the project's scope just because there aren't enough people to get to everything right away. WPMED is, however, prepared to answer questions if someone needs help at those articles, and to assess them for the WP:1.0 team, and that's a valid level of support.
      There's nothing wrong with having half a dozen projects tag a page. If WPUS wants to tag something, that doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to tag it, too.
      Tagging low-priority subjects isn't a waste of time: WikiProjects are not treated equally by the WP:1.0 team (=the only reason anyone assesses articles in the first place). The formula treats narrow-scope projects differently from wide-scope ones. A B/Low rating from WPUS is more valuable than a B/Low rating from a group like "WikiProject Western film actors from the 1960s". It's also valuable to tag pages if the group can provide specialized assistance. For example, Tom Cruise is tagged by WikiProject LGBT, which is better positioned than any other group to deal with disputes about a single paragraph in it. This is not one of their "core topics" (they don't participate in "importance" ratings), but if you've got a dispute about that one paragraph, then you're better off asking for their assistance than asking for WikiProject New York's or WikiProject Religion's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've just been looking at Template:WikiProject United States and notice that Project U.S. does not use Taskforces. Each of the U.S. states have their own projects, supported by Project U.S. though and there are other American projects. If a few U.S. members are going to insist on scattergun tagging every U.S. citizen, movie and blade of grass then task-forces should be used to sub-categorise the articles, rather than dumping them all in one heading. Either that, or simply don't tag them at all and leave the smaller national projects to worry about it. You don't need Project U.S. and a State project, and U.S. Film or Music, as well as independent Projects Bio, Film or Music all hopping on one article.. that's really not the point of projects. The WP 1.0 tables aren't "scoreboards", they're assessment tables, and unless a project is willing to actually maintain and develop an article itself, what's the point in tagging it if it can see 2 or 3 other closely-related projects already tagged? Chances are, most American members of Project U.S. are also a member of their home state.. so really, this two-fold tagging with U.S./State is not increasing interest or potential of improvement. If, as one editor stated, only the top/high tagged articles receive most focus, then clearly by reducing the number of articles tagged, to a less broad definition of what Project U.S. covers, distributed amongst however many members it has, results in more articles being developed. Most projects WP1.0 table are bottom-heavy with more Stubs/Start entries, and given the time it takes to research, write, develop, assess and promote an article to A, GA or even FA standards, then very few low-quality articles enter the top/high rating per year. The only effective solution is to define the tagging criteria more specifically, and untag articles that do not fit the bill. Less bottom, more top, more chance of members wanting to wade through the low-quality seeds instead of keep watering the fully grown articles, which has no real impact on improving articles. The analogy I've used before, and will use again here is this: the difference between someone who just watches the same top-quality articles to maintain them and remove vandalism from time to time, compared to someone who creates new articles or develops Stub/Starts to A-class as higher, is like the difference between someone who builds an extension on their home, and someone who washes the windows frequently.. one adds value, the other does not. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 21:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is tagging with a low priority a waste of time? It still allows the project to follow the progress of the article via article alerts. In WP:GERMANY the majority of recent article promotions where articles of low importance to the understanding of the subject matter "Germany". The wider input from the project had not been gained if those articles had not been tagged. The same is true about PRODs, AFDs and RMs. The all are notified to the group and action can be taken. WP:US is a slightly interesting beast as it is hated with a passion by some and therefore they do not want articles tagged as WP:US and they will fight tooth and claw to get the tags removed of their articles, and some of the stateprojects do not act as taskforces, but the majority do, so I do not understand the previous posters comment that there are no taskforces. In fact if you check the banner it allows for different importance assessments for each of these sub-projects. A WP:US importance of Low can at the same time be rated Mid for Ohio and High for Cape Cod. Those subprojects can still function with their own article alerts ect but have the collective support of the larger group. Another thing that a lot of people do not understand is that the WikiProject tagging is part of the overall WP:1.0 assessment which looks at the overall size of projects and does a statistical analysis accross the various projects to establish the number of articles which are to be included for every core subject. There being part of different subject projects is truly helpful for the article to make the final cut. Agathoclea (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Once again, from the top: A WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a method of categorizing articles. So "WikiProject WhatamIdoing's friends" is a perfectly fine WikiProject, and you could start "WikiProject People who think WhatamIdoing is nuts" and support exactly the same articles. The point is that we would work with each other, and you would work with each other, and if we and y'all can't work together in one big, happy group, then it is 100% fine for us to form two separate, smaller groups.
      That is exactly what's happened here. Most of people at the state projects are not interested in working together with the people at the US project. They are separate groups of people. Therefore they are separate WikiProjects.
      At this point, I'd ike to know why you even care. Are they out goring your favorite ox? do you feel denigrated because somebody else expressed an interest in helping with "your" article? Don't you have something better to do than to tell some other volunteer how to use his time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I got the strange feeling we agree on this. Agathoclea (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have tried to stay out of this conversation largely because I am tired of talking about what should be a fundamental rule...that WikiProject should be able to freely tag the articles in their scope. Unfortunately, from day one, WikiProject US has been under attack for tagging, which was part of the reason it failed and was shuttered before I started it back up a couple years ago. The bottom line is, if a project doesn't tag an article then they have no responsibility to develop or maintain it, period. So these arguments that it never helped do this and that are really supid and pointless because of course the project didn't help do anything if its not allowed to tag it. Secondly, we are and have been wasting huge amounts of time, energy and hardrive space bickering about simple concepts. Cooperation, team work and collaboration. These are fundamental principles that Wikipedia goes by and yet they seem to be lost on this we own the article stay away bullshit that's been going on. I am finding it very petty, tiresome and quite frankly childish. At this point I think myself and the other members of WPUS have done a lot of good work to a lot of articles so if one or 2 editors don't like the WPUS tag on their pet article then quite frankly I don't give a shit. Deal with it and grow up. Were all here to build an encyclopedia and to expand articles each in our own way and if that rubs a few editors raw that others are encrouching on their pet space then thats just tough. Kumioko (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Sarcasam Oh hey, look! It's a backdoor debate about Wikiproject US, again... No individual project holds ownership of a article. Use common sense when tagging (Do you really need a WP:Organism project tag for a specific species of ant?). Disagree with the tagging of an article to a specific project? DISCUSS IT, don't hostiley remove the project tag. I'm saying this at both WP:US members and other projects who think they have a lock on the rights to what projects a article can be shared with. Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Definitely involved in this situation, but this should be closed - there is nothing admins can do about this situation. --Rschen7754 08:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      eyes needed

      Extra eyes will watch for irony and/or disruption on the Rfc. Meanwhile, the yaks have arrived. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Noting to horrible yet, but I have feeling that we may need uninvolved admins at some point at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It's like rain on your wedding day.... --Jayron32 19:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      On our wedding day a car got broken into and all the wallets and gifts were stolen. I suspect the Romney team, of course--and I still lack a set of steak knives. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      LOL! Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd bet they left the fondue pot behind. First, the Romney crew don't believe in the cultural melting pot; second, all those forks in one place surely does not meet the family-first definition of a proper relationship. Third, where does big corporate health care make any money when everyone shares nicely? dangerouspanda 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The preceding four comments remind me of the type of stuff User:Baseball Bugs used to do that led to a ban discussion last February. Is this what ya'll what AN to be? Logically per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV it would be appropriate for me et. al. to start dumping anti Obama comments in here -- will that improve WP at all? Nobody Ent 20:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      So... you're equating lighthearted banter with disruptive POV editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Clearly we need to add a few yaks. -— Isarra ༆ 08:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Stale-ish Unblock Request

      Kim Dent-Brown has the situation under control now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I found an old unblock request from User:Noodleki. It would appear that they were blocked indef on 23 September for repeated copyvios, following which they posted two fairly contentious unblock requests, both denied. A third unblock request went up on 24 September, and has yet to be answered. Had the third request been as angry and incivil as the first two, I'd have closed it on sight - but it seemed that the user may have calmed down enough to discuss the matter. Or maybe not, I dunno. But I'd rather someone take a look and put it to bed for good - either way - before just dismissing it. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Apologies, the unblock request is at User_talk:Noodleki#2_problems_with_your_work. Thanks in advance for taking a quick look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the heads up, I will look at this now (posting here to prevent edit conflicts!) Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks again for the catch UltraExactZZ, I agree the latest request is much calmer and have unblocked. I will keep an eye on their talk page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries - thank you for the quick and well-reasoned response. I'll watchlist their talk as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Proposal for full site ban for StillStanding-247

      Closing; consensus is against a full site ban, and the sniping needs to stop. --Rschen7754 07:58, 6 October 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.

      Macabre ideation at User talk:StillStanding-247#Blindfold about five forms of death includes shooting squad, natural causes, run-over by a truck, paid gang-style execution, and a "dastardly plan to murder" [7].  This episode has been preceded by a long string of admin warnings [8].  Unscintillating (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      What's the point? Just close this and end this chapter.  little green rosetta(talk)
      central scrutinizer              04:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The previous comment leaves no explanation of how the "remark to Dennis" is "stupid and insulting".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Because you implied that because Dennis didn't agree that the user should be sitebanned, it somehow could only mean that Dennis was endorsing murder threats. You've failed to account for alternative viewpoints that don't necessarily fit into the "oppose murder threat - must ban" vs. "if not voting for ban - must endorse murder threat". There's a plethora of grey area here, and by pigeonholing Dennis into an unreasonable place, and not granting his position dignity, you are being rude and insulting. It is far better to grant those who hold differing outlooks on a situation a modicum of dignity, and not misinterpret their difference of opinion as somehow an untenable stance. --Jayron32 05:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Tag teaming?  Claiming that "I could only mean" is incorrect, so the subsequent refutation is knocking down a straw man.  I've neither accounted for nor failed to account for alternative viewpoints.  The argument wanders on and drifts into being a fallacious argument from authority.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Look, I've tried several times to carry on a conversation with you as though you were a person. Your responses test that assumption severely. Please try to actually talk about this as actual colleagues will discuss a point of difference, not as some formal exercise in logic, okay? Your repeated attempts to deflect any criticism of your stances by reference to arcane rhetorical devices leaves much to be desired. I would much rather you directly confronted the substance of what I, and others, are saying to you, but you've repeatedly avoided the issue by simply referencing various "fallacies" and then patently refused to engage. This method of interaction is not helpful in resolving issues. Please stop avoiding the straightforward discussion. We disagree, that is OK. But give me (and others) the respect of confronting that disagreement in a straightforward manner and not by dodging the need to respond to criticisms and hiding behind technical logic language. It isn't conducive to a productive discussion.--Jayron32 06:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose – I mean, if the person is going to sockpuppet his way through, anyways, assuming he is persistent enough. What difference does it make to anybody? --MuZemike 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - While I may not agree with his behaviour recently I feel that at this stage even THINKING about a ban is even more of a knee-jerk reaction than the block! We should give them some rope and if they hang themselves with it then so what! It's easier on the community than stuff like this discussion! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 06:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I'm not seeing any reason to institute a ban for these comments. To be frank (and, notably, without wading through the reams of stuff on StillStanding-247's talk page so I may well be missing some important context here), I don't think that these comments were meant to be taken seriously, though they're not in good taste and do suggest an entirely unhelpful attitude. This justifies an indef block (which is pretty unlikely to ever be lifted), but not a formal ban. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not yet. Just keep observing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. I'd oppose an unblock, as he shows no sign of understanding the other reasons for the block. However, if he were to understand what he's been doing wrong, it shouldn't require appealing to the Foundation or to the general community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - When and if StillStanding does something more to destroy his credibility or standing at Wikipedia, I have full faith in the Admin corps ability to handle it. Unscintillating, I think it would be best if you leave the additional drama at home. It is fairly obvious that StillStanding didn't really make any credible or serious threats of violence. Stirring the pot to cause more drama doesn't help. -- Avanu (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      These comments are not those of a neutral editor. ; Unscintillating (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Look Unscinillating; just drop it! You've said your piece on this matter and you need to stop pushing it in our faces as though it was the only way to look at things! If you keep at it you may well end up being blocked for the same reasons as stillstanding sans the threats! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Avanu and I have not had any trouble for over a year now.  Is it your goal to open wounds and start fighting?  If you are secure that you have the force of reason with you, why are you using a "stick" argument, and making threats?  It shows weakness in your position.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:53, 6 October 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.

      Barts1a topic ban reinstated

      Barts1a noticeboard topic ban reinstated under previous terms and conditions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I've just reinstated Barts1a (talk · contribs)'s topic ban on posting on noticeboards as he was engaging in clearly disruptive conduct in relation to the above discussion (including in follow-up posts on an editor's talk page). My rationale for this is at User talk:Barts1a#Topic ban reinstated, and I've also notified his mentor. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I could not disagree with this topic ban more. I see exactly two comments by Barts1a (talk · contribs) in that thread—one a !vote (which is clearly appropriate), and one telling a clearly disruptive editor to drop the stick (which, while not nice, was clearly deserved). There is nothing that even vaguely hints at possibly some day warranting a topic ban, much less a bright line. —Kerfuffler  horsemeat
      forcemeat              08:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As I read it, Nick did not reinstate the topic ban based on the vote but based on Barts1a's threat of a block here and repeated on the user's talk page. The easing of the block restictions occurred about a month ago. If you read that discussion, you'll see that the biggest concerns were Barts1a's posts on administrative noticeboards and his acting like an admin. Several admins felt that even though two components of the ban were being removed, Barts1a should still avoid noticeboards. Reinstating the topic ban seems entirely justified given his behavior, not to mention coming so soon after the lifting.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that was my reasoning. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Barts1a also started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247 because he disagreed with Ihardlythinkso's support of StillStanding. He attempted to delete the SPI when other editors disagreed with him. Support rebanning from notice boards --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Good call. Looking at the full breadth of actions by Barts1a, and not just the comments in the thread above, show that this was within the types of actions that led to his former topic ban. When the ban was lifted, it appears that he was unable to stop himself from falling into the same patterns of behavior as before. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice, shame on us all... --Jayron32 12:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Deleted by Nyttend (talk · contribs) as a copyright violation. (NAC) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Alpha Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      Hi. The alpha generation page is a copyright violation. Could someone please remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.160 (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      At a quick glance it certainly appears that parts of it may well be, though I've not been able to find the source. Do you know where it is copied from? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yuk - this gets worse. Some of it seems to be copied from our Generation article, which in turn seems to have copied material from the Pew Research Center website. [9] - search for 'nimble' to find a section in all three 'sources'. The Alpha Generation seems to be mostly the work of User :Stevetongson - I'll notify him of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      For a start I've run a duplication detector report [10] for Generation and the Pew Research Center website. The two significant matches in our Generation article have now been fixed by turning them into direct quotes. I haven't yet looked into Alpha Generation though. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect that everything in Alpha Generation that isn't copy-pasted without attribution from our Generation article (the bulletted section) is copy-pasted from elsewhere (note the bizarre 'referencing' to non-existent ref numbers). Is there any reason why it can't simply be blanked for now, while we sort the mess out? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You may be right there. I've put a hat on the article and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 6. This needs wither some major rewriting or deletion. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Backlog notice: Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

      Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests could use some more admin attention. Regards, Goodraise 21:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Largely due to the overzealous protecting of everything by some admins IMO. Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Let's see, there's some MediaWiki namespace, some user .js pages (which can't be edited by anyone but that editor, so if they break something, an admin has to step in), some highly visible template pages... yup, good call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Kumioko, do you remember the last serious outbreak of template vandalism? The first template on the list has 336078 transclusions. bobrayner (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Possible inappropriate action during an RfA

      Leaky has posted "withdrawal" messages to all of the co-nominators' talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I'm bringing this to this board for comment - whether or not I am involved as a participant is beside the point. In spite of my knowledge of the RfA process, I am not sure if such an action in an attempt to influence the process is acceptable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't see anything wrong with it. Pointless because nominators are obviously going to be watching the page. And in poor taste for sure. Your response here was appropriate and to the point and best to just ignore the whole thing. --regentspark (comment) 12:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict)There is no attempt to influence the process on my part. A greater than usual level of concern has been raised by the community at large about alleged, past inappropriate behaviour by the candidate. This is some way above the usual level of "quibbles" raised in most RFA. Given the notable level of support by 3 highly regarded and influential Admins. it is appropriate that they are aware of the community concerns and were offered the opportunity to say anything, nothing, re-endorse their support etc. My neutral message was not a 3 line whip and short of adding hearts and flowers could not have been more polite. In the interests of full disclosure, I have pursued a determined line of questioning with the candidate. Kudpung has also invested a fair bit of time in this RFA but has been criticised for his oppressive approach towards some comments and for suggesting that a very lengthy oppose rationale should be removed from the RFA and placed elsewhere. If I have breached a policy or guideline please let me know but as far as I know the current RFA process permits cross-examination and that must surely include ensuring that nominators are aware of new background. Leaky Caldron 13:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      While not a violation of anything, to be honest LC, your note is a little pointy. Nominators are bound to be watching the RfA and will be aware of new background, if any. I suggest you just move away from this. --regentspark (comment) 13:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No, there sure is not a "greater than usual level" of anything...except that Leaky, as I noted on the RFA talkpage, you've taken an increasingly disruptive level of action on that RFA, and I'm surprised by that ... it's not at all what I expected from you dangerouspanda 13:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you wish, preferably on my talk page, I would genuinely welcome a note of those contributions which you consider to be disruptive. I have asked a number of questions - all answered. I have contributed to the Username discussion, raised concern about the bullying of the editor who drew attention to the IRC canvassing and, more recently, raised concern about the attempts by some supporters to coerce or disparage the opposes based on the alleged off-wiki vandalism. All of my comments have been polite and within limits. Tell me with which you disagree. Leaky Caldron 13:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether the comment was designated to influence the RfA or not, the morality of putting such a comment on a nominators talk page is despicable. I'd personally be insulted by such a comment if I nominated someone for adminship. That comment is practically saying, "You should retract your nomination statement as the RfA has taken a turn for the worst and people don't agree with you." Nominators are fully capable of making their own decisions in an RfA. I don't need someone badgering me about the direction of the RfA.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Rather than twisting it to suit your point of view and for the avoidance of doubt, let's be clear precisely what it does say: "As prominent and widely respected Administrators your endorsement of RF candidates is highly influential, as can be seen from several of the supporting !votes. Therefore, in view of the level of concern relating to the past activities of the candidate, it is sufficiently important to ask you to consider whether you wish to comment on whether the candidate still has the confidence indicated in your nomination statement." What I would actually expect is a "don't worry, I continue to fully support my nominee" or, indeed a dismissive nothing at all. I would not expect overly-defensive, "how dare you challenge my judgement, I'm taking this to WP:AN". Leaky Caldron 13:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That isn't exactly quite what happened though, was it, LC? I'm also well aware of the literary device of puffing people up before hitting them below the belt. Fortunately, I'm a Wikipedia Black Belt. The only thing I'm defending here is propriety on RfA, of which you are well aware that I have been one of the pushers for sanity there for years - since long before I even became an admin myself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "Respectfully", not ""respectfully", you are reading way too much into it. In fact you are simply wrong. I mean't every word, in the order they are provided and with no intended or implied subtext. Little old WP:AGF raises its head again. I suggest you accept the complement as it was intended instead of seeking an ulterior motive. You are not the only one concerned about the RFA process. Leaky Caldron 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The irony is that even AGF can have its limits, especially when the issue is anomalous to say the least, and particularly at a process where traditionally all AGF goes, no holds barred, out of the window anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Though unintentional, your comment has several hidden meanings.
      1. I do not believe this candidate is a sufficient administrator, and believe you should retract the nomination statement as your statement is causing a lot of support votes to be made. (Can be perceived as trying to sabotage the RfA.)
      2. Several incidents have been bright to light about this candidate, and I think you should re-evaluate your position on the nomination statement. (Can be insulting to the nominators.)
      3. Please indicate whether you still support the candidate or not. (nominators are likely to watch and would change their stance if they felt the need to. Especially Kudpung and Worm who are usually dead on with nominations and come to trust them to the point that I see no need to evaluate the candidate anymore.)
      Cheers—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To be blunt - utter tosh. I neither said, implied or solicited those inarticulate ramblings. Please note anyone stopping by here and seeing the above -"I did NOT make those statements at any time, any where". Leaky Caldron 14:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether you meant to do so or not, I agree with Cyberpower that the questions are implied. Once again, my suggestion to you is to drop this. Sooner rather than later. --regentspark (comment) 14:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Drop it? I didn't bring the matter here. What do you want me to do, withdraw the note on the nominator's pages? Leaky Caldron 14:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The correct way to drop it is to say something like "I just wanted to bring the concerns of the opposers to the attention of the nominators. I shouldn't have done that because I'm sure the nominators are watching the RfA and can judge things on their own." Withdraw gracefully, so to speak. Defending yourself is a slippery slope you shouldn't want to go down. --regentspark (comment) 14:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the considerate advice. I'm more than happy to accept guidance when it is put forward in a neutral, non-aggressive, not overly assertive way. Consider it done. It may be a little while, I have to attend to my 4 hour slow roasted brisket. Leaky Caldron 15:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just want it to be clear that LC is probably a victim of his own enthusiasm. What I brought to this board was a question of clarification on a principle. If I had had any intentions of seeking sanctions, I would have taken it to the 'other' admin board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      IP problem

      108.220.9.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

      87.97.157.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

      Cache (computing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      My talk page topic

      I blocked 108 on September 30 for a month for disruptive editing and threats of block evasion. 87 posted the message (linked above) on my talk page. 87 also made this edit to the Cache article. I've blocked 87 for a month, and I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. My purpose in coming here is to see if there's anything more that can be done or whether I should have done something different/less/more.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I'd submit one or both IP addresses to WP:OP for a proxy check, as I don't often know of people who vandalize Wikipedia from Bulgaria and Texas within a week. Otherwise, get your Whac-a-Mole hammer out. It's gonna be a fun ride, I suspect. --Jayron32 05:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, Jayron, I've created two reports at WP:OP, and we'll see what they say. This is not an area I know much about, so I may need more help.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You may get a more extensive response there, however http://87.97.157.121 indicates it's not your average home IP and very likely a proxy. What gets removed in the edits also suggests it's an anonymising proxy. In this case I'd recommend blocking the proxy for a different period, perhaps six months or a year. These proxy block lengths can be tricky to judge, however both block lengths of 1 month or indefinite are somewhat difficult to justify in this case, the former length in particular. HTH. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Nyttend indefinitely blocked 87 as an anonymizing proxy. I didn't know we were "allowed" to block any IP address indefinitely, but as I said earlier, much of this is still unfamiliar to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ask him. It may be better for it to be a long (3+ years) block than indefinite. But you could, you know, ask him why. He doesn't bite. (unless asked to, I suppose). --Jayron32 17:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll bite if you insist, but my canned salmon made a good lunch just now, so I'd rather not :-) I thought policy was that we indef-blocked IP addresses that had been shown to be open proxies? Perhaps policy got changed without me noticing, or perhaps I misunderstood it in the first place, or perhaps you're wrong. I don't know which one, but if you can show that policy doesn't support an indef in this case, anyone may feel free to re-block for a definite period of time. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Read Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses#Block_lengths which states "Open proxies should generally be reported to the WikiProject on open proxies and blocked for the length of time they are likely to remain open on the same IP address, which in most cases is likely to be only a few months. Many open proxies have been blocked indefinitely, but this is no longer considered good practice. A large proportion of indefinitely blocked proxies are no longer open proxies." (bold mine). Even open proxies shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. It has been practice for a while now to essentially never block an IP address indefinitely because no IP address remains in the same state for more than a few years, even at the longest. --Jayron32 18:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There you go: "no longer considered good practice". Apparently I missed out on the change. ProcseeBot (an extreme example of an admin who rarely makes constructive content contributions!) is issuing blocks of two months to a year, so I'm not sure what's right. I think I'll just ask the operator, Slackr, to adjust the block and add this IP to whatever list the bot checks for blocking. Never mind; he last edited in July. I'll just get Advice (constitutional) from the open proxies project or ask them to do the job. Nyttend (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) But what about this ("Open or anonymising proxies, including Tor, may be blocked from editing for any period at any time.")? And, as an aside, aren't we waiting for WP:OP to make a determination as to whether this is an open proxy?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The user declared themselves to be using an open proxy, so I'm not sure we need to wait for that. And Nyttend: don't sweat the small stuff. At my age, I'm starting to miss lots of changes as well. --Jayron32 18:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Can't hurt for it to be blocked for the near future, so I don't think that it matters that we wait for a determination. Not sweating; I'm just surprised. I figured that ProcseeBot issued definite-length blocks because it has nothing else to do besides checking proxies, while we human admins had been levying indefinites because we have other things in our lives. I suppose that I could issue a block for precisely 100 years and thus fulfill the letter of the law by blocking for a defined period of time :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for admin closure

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

      Please, some uninvolved admin needed to close one RM per Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Multiple requests on one page?. Thank you. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

       Done Thanks! --WhiteWriterspeaks 10:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Admin assistance needed

      Point (bluelink was tempting, but I successfully resisted the temptation) made. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      I have requested multiple times for some edits to be made to Template talk:WikiProject United States without action. Although I can do the edits I cannot implement them and my RFA showed that I am not trusted to do them so I need someone with admin rights to do the requested changes. I will not do all the work so that an admin can just do a lazy copy and paste. If you don't want me to have access to implement them that's fine but I'm not going to do all the work. The fact remains though these edits need to be done so I need an admin who doesn't mind getting their hands a little dirty to make these changes to the template or reduce the templates protection level to semi protected so I can do it. Kumioko (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Unfortunately, nobody can know exactly what you want unless you do the work. Please remember that a negative RFA doesn't mean that we distrust you to make this kind of edit. Until you put the code in the sandbox or provide a link to another page where you've put it, there's no way to fulfill your request. Nyttend (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll echo Nyttend on this, and the notes that several people have made on the Template talk page you noted: There are two issues here: first, since no one here is a mindreader, no one can actually know what changes you wish to see made, so make them in the sandbox, and we'll copy-paste them over. Second, that your failed RFA seems to have affected the attitude you have towards working positively at Wikipedia. That you failed an RFA is unfortunate, but it doesn't give you the right to make unreasonable demands upon other editors. Yeah, it sucks that you're RFA failed. But that doesn't mean you need to take the "I failed an RFA so I'm not trusted to be helpful" attitude. That's not what a failed RFA means, and if that is the attitude you're going to take, I'm not sure we need any more of that sort of thing around Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This has nothing to do with your RFA. I'm sorry that it failed but having an obvious chip on your shoulder towards those of us that have managed to pass is not the way forward. We don't take assignments any more than you do. We also don't get paid any more than you do. You are only being asked to actually present specific edits to be made, which is all that is expected from any user making such requests. If making some vague point about why you failed at RFA is more important to you than those edits that is your problem. This may be a good time to re-examine your priorities. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I explained the edits needed. The edits I am requesting are really easy or should be for someone who has the technical knowledge needed to be an admin. My RFA absolutely did reflect the communities lack of trust in my edits. There is really no other way to interpret it. I can live with that but that comes with a result and that result is that I am no longer willing to do those things that I used to that are admin related. If I am not trusted to be an admin then I should not be doing those things, period. Yes I do have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about it. Your right, after 6 years and several hundred thousand edits and countless things I have done and contributed too I am not popular enough to be an admin. Yeah that hurts but I am still editing. I just don't think I need to be doing admin related tasks like editing protected templates. If that means the edits don't get done then I guess that's the way it will have to be until someone with the necessary rights is willing to do it. Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Knowledge of template coding is not required of admins. We only need to be able to see what is being requested from people who, like you, are obviously (1) knowledgeable and (2) editing in good faith. I know that you're trustworthy enough to improve this template; the sole problem is that you're not providing the code. Please remember that we make this requirement of everyone, including people who haven't gone through RFA. Nyttend (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I shouldn't need to provide the code. If I said Article X needs an infobox there wouldn't be a requirement for me to do it in the sandbox first. Same thing here. The template needs some changes and I have explained what those changes are, I cannot do them so I have told those that can what to do. I shouldn't need to spell it out. I don't have anything against you or any of the other admins but the system is broken. If untrusted editors need to make edits for trusted ones to implement because the trusted ones don't know how, then that's a problem. Kumioko (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Requesting attention for abortion case watchlist notice request

      I'd like to request some attention for MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage. I don't know what's supposed to happen there, but a total lack of feedback for over a week, as subsequent requests are processed, doesn't seem like it. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for people willing to close abortion discussion

      We need three admins who are prepared to close the latest abortion naming RFC at the start of November. To make sure we make progress the admins concerned will need to be prepared to close the discussion as a vote (if that is agreed) and/or to close potentially tight discussions with a consensus (rather than no consensus) in a controversial topic area.

      The reward for this challenge is to try and end a dispute that has been going on for the better part of two years :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Of note I see no particular reason that the closers have to be admins, but non-admin potential closers should ask on the talk page for objections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm reading you right, and you are asking for them to find a consensus and not consider "no consensus", that would be problematic. You can't close a discussion if it really is no consensus by forcing a consensus, or else it becomes a supervote. Closers must be free to draw whatever conclusion the situation merits, even if it is inconvenient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not really a full characterization. If you look at the RFC and the voting-related proposal on its talk page, you'll see that what's being suggested is that the core conclusion of the RFC be evaluated by the usual judgment of consensus, and if that conclusion has consensus, then voting mechanics be used to decide among the options for how that conclusion should be implemented, because if the conclusion does have consensus, then one of the options outlined should be carried out, and the determination of which one should not be vulnerable to a reading of no consensus. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To be clear I don't want to force a consensus result (above and beyond the voting proposal). What I wanted to request is an admin who is prepared to close something which doesn't reach a supermajority as a consensus - if there actually is one.
      If it is literally a toss up between the arguments, and we don't agree a vote, then it should be closed as no-consensus.
      Sorry for being unclear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Category:Requests for unblock is backlogged

      We got one request pending since September 19. T. Canens (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That is bad :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      If you are talking about the request I think you are, it is most likely because the wrote a novel-length unblock request. Most block appeals do not require several thousand words of explanation. At a glance it looks like a long examination of whether or not their actions meet the technical definition of sockpuppetry. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I would have tackled it myself, but it was my block in the first place, so... T. Canens (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You're not getting off that easy, I just read the whole thing and I find it somewhat compelling. I have therefore placed it on hold to be discussed with the blocking admin. Any other uninvolved parties are also free to comment at User talk:ArkRe. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've not looked at it, so this is purely a procedural question without reflection on this specific case. Is there anything wrong with the blocking admin accepting an unblock request? I can see the problems that would result if I blocked someone and then declined that person's unblock request, but what about the opposite? Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not unless the admin blocked in order to be the one to unblock later, or it was the result of arbitration enforcement, or something similar. A standard discretionary block by an admin suggests at least as much discretion to unblock.--Tznkai (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The blocking admin can unblock based on a request, but not decline an unblock. (Patrolling Category:Requests for unblock is one of my usual haunts when actually using my admin account :-) ) dangerouspanda 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Dispute with admin User:Hu12

      Recently, I blocked User:76.189.121.57 over a matter that was quickly resolved and I unblocked - it had been a dispute borne out of frustration, with no malice (and I've since gone on to try to help 76.189.121.57 with the relevant content issue). 76.189.121.57 subsequently blanked User talk:76.189.121.57, which is fine according to WP:REMOVED, which says...

      "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." (emphasis original)

      User:Hu12, an admin since 2007, reverted that removal. Both I and 76.189.121.57 pointed out on his talk page that such removal is allowed, 76.189.121.57 provided WP:REMOVED as evidence, and I reinstated the blanked version. Hu12 refused to accept that, and quoted some policy from Simple Wikipedia to support his claim that IPs aren't covered by WP:USER or by WP:User pages and are not allowed to blank their talk pages (and even had it been en.wikipedia policy, it did not support his claim anyway).

      He then went on to reinstate the blanked content, this time as an archive, making out that he was extending leeway that an unregistered user would not normally enjoy. Archives are not compulsory, and he had no right to try to force 76.189.121.57 to keep the material in an archive. 76.189.121.57 reverted the archive link from his talk page and I deleted the archive.

      User:Barek stepped in to point out to Hu12 that he was wrong, but he simply will not accept it. And apparently it's my behaviour that's all wrong because I told him to "stop fucking about" with 76.189.121.57's talk page. He also claimed that I attributed malice to his creation of the archive, which I certainly did not do - I believe he did it out of poor understanding of current policy and practice, not out of malice. He also threw in the little gem "Perhaps secretly inside you even enjoy the thrill of a little confrontation", which people who know me will easily be able to dismiss.

      My view is that Hu12 was wrong about policy, and wrong to claim that an unregistered user is not allowed to blank stale messages from their talk page. Hu12 was wrong to try to force the IP to keep the stale messages (including wrong to try to force an archive to be kept), wrong to quote Simple Wikipedia policy to support his claim (policy which did not support it anyway), and wrong to refuse to listen to three other editors (including 2 admins).

      Hu12 is now refusing to discuss the matter further and considers it closed and that the only bad behaviour is mine - but I don't think it can be closed when three of us think he was wrong about policy and he refuses to consider our opinions.

      I'm happy to admit to frustration and a little anger, but in my view Hu12 was behaving arrogantly by insisting he was right (without providing valid policy to support his claims) and by refusing to consider that the three people in opposition to him might have been right.

      So, I'd appreciate a clarification of who is right and who is wrong here, and who, if anyone, behaved badly as an admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:REMOVED is quite clear on the matter and I'd be interested in hearing Hu12's rationale. GiantSnowman 11:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)Although I understand your frustration, Boing! said Zebedee, I see from Hu12 one single blanking, and one single attempt to create an archive. And that all prompted you to tell Hu12 to 'stop fucking about', and results in an escalation to this AN-thread? Civility might have brought you somewhere, but don't be surprised that (perceived!) incivility certainly is not going to get anyone anywhere. This is an utter non-issue, which should have been handled differently and is certainly not a situation that needs this escalation, but it needs people to drop the stick. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's incorrect -- the "stop fucking about" came after a series of WP:IDHT posts by Hu12. Boing! explained the policy and provided links to applicable policies, and Hu12 wasn't being responsive. Nobody Ent 11:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • When an admin clearly does not understand current Wikipedia policy and refuses to listen when told, instead making his own unsupported pronouncements and acting on them, I think he needs to be informed about the policy and we need to be reassured that he will follow it in future. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What started as a minor cockup by Hu12 has rapidly become a gigantic fuckup by Hu12. I think we'd all love to "chalk it up to experience and move on", but so far, Hu12's actions and responses are preventing that dangerouspanda 12:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not asking for any sanctions, just for Hu12 to be informed by the admin community of correct policy and to understand it - he won't listen to me or Barek, but he needs to listen to someone. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That is the point. He needs to say "Oh, ok." That is all. If he maintains the same position that an IP can't delete material on their talk page, then that would show the problem still exists. The problem isn't this one talk page, it is the misunderstanding of policy. Discussing it here is a way to demonstrate a consensus on the reading of the policy, and common courtesy dictates Hu12 simply acknowledge the consensus. An apology isn't required, just an acknowledgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hu12 hasn't edited since before the ANI notice, so presumably is unaware of this discussion - I agree with Dennis; if, on reading the thread, he agree that he made a mistake (we all do!), then we're done here. If more IDHTing ensues, then we may have a problem, but I can't see Hu12 disagreeing with the clear consensus on polity interpretation above. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems like one of those signature Wikipedia arguments, over something incredibly trivial and minor in the grand scheme of things, but which quickly escalates to shenanigans and anger. I know Hu12 to be a reasonable editor and admin, so I reserve judgement until they comment... but I don't see anything that would justify their position. I hope that this can be resolved with a simple trout. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I do have to ask, though - what exactly was the problem with making an archive of the warnings? Honestly, unless someone knows they're there, why would it matter? If someone needs to dig back into the IP's history, the note in the log that says "Archiving warnings/notices to archive" would provide whatever link is required. I agree that this was handled poorly by Hu12, but I don't see why that would not have been a perfectly acceptable middle ground. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=516835778"