Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
{{archive top|'''Closed; topic-ban adopted.''' As an uninvolved administrator I determine that consensus on this page, after an appropriate length of discussion, is in favor of the proposed topic-ban. The duration of the topic-ban is indefinite, but may be appealed on this page after not less than six months from today. I ask that someone more familiar than I am with the templates box the discussion and notify those affected. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
{{archive top|'''Closed; topic-ban adopted.''' As an uninvolved administrator I determine that consensus on this page, after an appropriate length of discussion, is in favor of the proposed topic-ban. The duration of the topic-ban is indefinite, but may be appealed on this page after not less than six months from today. I ask that someone more familiar than I am with the templates box the discussion and notify those affected. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
<small>I box-templated the close and left a note at [[WT:RD]] as requested. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 21:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
<small>I box-templated the close and left a note at [[WT:RD]] as requested. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 21:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
:And I have added it to [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions]]. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 00:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Relevent discussions before I get into details: |
Relevent discussions before I get into details: |
Revision as of 00:40, 8 June 2013
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
![]() | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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).
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 56 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)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 117 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 114 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 114 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
(Initiated 85 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 66 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also a discussion at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion#Some holistic solution is needed to closing numerous move requests for names of royals, but that dates back to April. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 59 days ago on 29 June 2024) Conversation seems to have concluded. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 18:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can someone close this one? For some reason it was extended, but it hasn't really changed anything. Nemov (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- +1 please close it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 13:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 17 July 2024) Any brave soul willing to close this? The participants fall about 50-50 on both sides (across both RfCs too), and views are entrenched. Banedon (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 40 days ago on 18 July 2024) Not complicated, relatively little discussion, not a particularly important issue. But, in my opinion, needs uninvolved closure because the small numerical majority has weaker arguments. And no other uninvolved has stepped forward. Should take maybe 30 minutes of someone's time. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide
(Initiated 39 days ago on 19 July 2024) Talk:List of genocides#RFC - Inclusion of Gaza genocide -IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 July 2024) RFC tax has expired and last comment was 5 days ago. TarnishedPathtalk 04:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 31 days ago on 27 July 2024) – This discussion is a month old and consensus is very clear. Could an uninvolved editor please summarize and close it so that the foot-draggers will finally let the article be updated? 2601:600:817F:16F0:815A:D0F2:7C13:ACE7 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 days ago on 10 August 2024) Several users have discussed the issue sufficiently, but others agree that there are too many options to reach a consensus.Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Goodtiming8871: Please properly format this request and list it in the proper section. See the rest of the requests above as well as the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @voorts, Thank for your kind advice, I updated the format after reading other requests and instructions. Please advise me if it still needs to be fixed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Goodtiming8871: Just needs to be moved to the RfC section as far as I see. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- And done. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Super Goku V,Thank you for your kind advice and contribution. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, @voorts, Thank for your kind advice, I updated the format after reading other requests and instructions. Please advise me if it still needs to be fixed. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 15 days ago on 12 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 24/08/2024. TarnishedPathtalk 04:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 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)
(Initiated 5 days ago on 22 August 2024) There are currently two separate RfCs about Trump’s infobox photo. Should there be a procedural close, or should discussion be allowed to continue? Prcc27 (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Done ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 79 | 82 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 30 days ago on 28 July 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Closed by editor Dr vulpes. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 1 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 10 days ago on 17 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 311 days ago on 21 October 2023) a merge discussion related to Antisemitism in the United States and Antisemitism in the United States in the 21st century now without comments for 4 weeks; requestion a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 272 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 168 days ago on 12 March 2024) Merger proposal started months ago. Closure may be overdue. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 91 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 89 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 80 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 17 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)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple IP addresses
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Relevent discussions before I get into details:
- Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Community ban of Wickwack AKA Ratbone
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/121.215.10.7
At the reference desks, there has been what appears to be recently uncovered someone who is, for all intents and purposes, violating the spirit of WP:SOCK by using multiple personal identifiers including the following:
- Wickwack
- Ratbone
- Keit
- Floda
None of these is a registered account, but they all edit from the same Australian service provider (Telstra) with a highly dynamic IP address, and they always sign their posts using one of those monikers, though they have never formally registered an account, they have clearly represented themselves as four distinct personalities. There is some compelling evidence, however, based on the style and overlap of editing, the fact that they all edit from the same geographic area, all sign their posts in the same manner (though they use different names, the way they sign their name to their IP posts is the same), and that they frequently show up to support the others when a conflict arises is quite disturbing. There are even instances where more than one of the "personalities" will edit in quick succession from the exact same IP address. Not everyone in the above discussions is fully convinced of the connection, but a decent case based on diffs and other evidence has been built by User:TenOfAllTrades and User:Modocc. I'd rather not copy the entirety of their evidence here, as that would take this post into WP:TLDR territory (If I'm not there already), but I'd like to ask that as many people as possible review that evidence, and then vote on the following ban proposal. If you either a) disagree that the evidence is compelling enough or b) agree that the evidence is clear, but still do not support the ban proposed below, please feel free to oppose it. If, however, you think this type of WP:GAME behavior is disruptive and dishonest and should be stopped, please consider supporting it. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Addendum: I know I am supposed to notify the user in question, but they edit from a very dynamic range of IP addresses, changing randomly. I have no idea what the most recent IP address they have used is, but they do actively monitor WT:RD and other parts of the reference desk, so I have left a notice there hoping they will see it. Any other suggestions as to how to meet the notification requirements are much obliged, I have every desire to hear this person's side of the story, but I am at a loss as to how to more efficiently notify them than I have already done, so any help in this department would be appreciated. --Jayron32 04:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I put a notice here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:124.178.49.220 --Modocc (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Topic ban of IP editor known as Wickwack and other aliases
The user known by the aliases Wickwack, Ratbone, Keit, Floda, who edits from a dynamic IP address, is indefinitely banned from contributing to discussions at Wikipedia:Reference desk and Wikipedia talk:Reference desk and all subpages thereof. They are banned regardless of whichever alias they use, or even if they stop using aliases altogether, whether it be one of the above, or another, enforceable by reverting their contributions to the above discussion pages.
- Support as nom. --Jayron32 04:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support due to manipulative use of "alias". -- Scray (talk) 04:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Having been gamed, I'm inclined to delve into the archives to see what other misconduct might have occurred that might warrant a full site ban. -Modocc (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Unless the editor is willing to register an account and provide some rationale/alternative for their behaviour.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 06:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support I'm generally a supporter of a lot of things WickWack says, but Jayron has convinced me that his pretty obvious messing around with aliases is a big breach of at least the spirit of what we're on about here. He says some very constructive stuff on the Ref Desks, and he has a ready solution if he wants to stay with us. Register. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support But without enforcement until after he has posted on WT:RD or W:RD, and had a chance to have his say (if he doesn't, then the lack of a ban makes no difference, but he should have the chance to comment to stop it coming into effect, rather than to remove it). MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- My point is that there should not be a presumption of guilt until it can be reasonably assumed that he has at least seen the argument. When he posts on WT:RD (or on W:RD, which will probably cause someone to point him here), we can safely presume he has seen it. If he doesn't post on either, then the topic ban makes no difference anyway. In practice, it makes little difference, I'm just more comfortable with him defending the ban before it comes in than trying to revoke it once it is in force. MChesterMC (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- But do you see the problem? He is not registered. His IP address changes frequently. (Not his fault. It's how his ISP operates.) So how can we communicate with him? (Personally, I think we should force editors in such situations to register, precisely to avoid the problem we have here.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support but conditional on not registering; i.e. he (?) should be allowed to register an account and no longer be bothered by this, but looking at the evidence allowing the continuation of the ip socking outweighs the benefits of their frequently useful answer on the RD.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Question/(Non-administrator comment) I'm curious, if this editor is unregistered and has a dynamic enough IP address that it is causing an issue confirming that they have received notification that there is an issue with their style of contributing, how is a topic ban going to help in protecting the community? Short of blocking the wide range of IPs the editor edits from, what is going to stop them? I see such a wide IP range-block as doing more harm than good keeping out multiple other good editors that follow all the rules in an attempt to stop one stick in the mud. Forcing everyone to register goes against what the spirit of Wikipedia is, and I would never support it (as I'm sure most others wouldn't as well). I am simply at a loss for words and ideas that might actually prove useful to prevent this kind of damage. Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wickwack signs his posts because he wants people to know that he posted them - despite an every-changing IP. Forcing him to be truly anonymous and to gain no credit for his work would be a genuine punishment that would hurt him. He could pick another name to attach to his IP posts - but as soon as we realize that this is another sock - he'd have to change it and start over with building a good reputation. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I presume this is why the ban is "enforceable by reverting their contributions". Mind you, if he stops signing his name(s), we open up a whole different can of worms when we try and decide if a post is Wickwacky enough to revert (or should that just be whacky?) MChesterMC (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Last Chance I'd prefer they be given a final chance to pick one identity and register it. If they refuse am not against a ban. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- I could accept that. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The IP-hopping creates additional difficulty for us in monitoring his activities. He is not compelled to IP-hop, and there is no reason for us to view that as extenuating. If he creates an account and stops pretending to be multiple people then he can ask to have this ban reviewed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- You haven't read the thread properly, have you? It's his ISP, the biggest in Australia, that does the changing of the IP addresses. It's not the editor's choice. While I too support sanctions, I get cross with posts that are poorly informed, apparently by choice. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - It's going to be tough to impose a punishment that will stick - but doing nothing at all just gives permission to any malcontent with a rapidly cycling DHCP address to run riot through our encyclopedia. If Wickwack (et al) is handed a block - then we can at least delete contributions that are identified by that set of monikers on sight. Since these activities seem most common on the Ref Desks - where a small community of editors is easily able to monitor all posts - that's not an unreasonable consequence. I get a sense that Wickwack takes pleasure from being credited with his posts - which is why he signs them - and I doubt that he'll become a totally anonymous IP poster...so a seemingly symbolic punishment might have more teeth than one might at first suspect. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Last chance per Medeis, ie unless he commits to an identity and stops socking. His contributions were often good; his chosen format was a pain but within the rules. I fully support the principle of IP editing, but a topic ban doesn't force him to register to edit any area where he has no problematic history. If he's genuine, he'll appreciate why this is required in view of the diffs. If it turns into Whack-a-Wickwack, at least we'll know where we stand. I really hope he registers. - Karenjc 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Me too. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- Last chance as per Medeis. Like everyone else, I am tired of this editor's antics . Gandalf61 (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Partial oppose. I haven't heard compelling evidence, and I know sometimes Wickwack gives good answers. The proposed remedy is that we delete his stuff on sight, but since we might not know for sure who it is that could mean discarding good content by a new volunteer. I would suggest we simply give ourselves broad latitude to remove comments by him we think are abusive, but also the freedom to leave anything that seems helpful. Wnt (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Last chance as per Medeis. Medeis is showing human feelings for the first time, so, we could do that too. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the smoking gun I am copying it from the Ref Desk Talk Page linked to above and archiving it since it's a quote and to make it stand out. Another bold inset format would be fine if someone wants to edit it.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
TenOfAllTrades' smoking gun evidnece of gaming the system copied from the Ref Desk Talk Page}}
- By themselves, those instances might be explained away as (admittedly rather implausible) coincidence. Damning, however, is that while editing from the IP address 121.215.10.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Wickwack/Ratbone appears to have inadvertently slipped up, first editing this talk page and signing as Ratbone, then about half a day later, posting a rather mean-spirited comment on WP:RD/Sci while signing as Wickwack. Either he forgot to reset his router between posts, or Telstra left his IP static for a lot longer than usual.
- If Wickwack/Ratbone just liked to use different names from time to time, it might be no more than a mildly-irritating eccentricity. Pretending to be two or more separate individuals to try to win arguments on the Ref Desk, or to try to protect himself from sanctions on this talk page rises to the level of misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- And here are a few more. A very quick search through the archives finds
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 April 25#Why can't LCDs be made capable of displaying interlaced video?, where 'Keit' disagrees with SteveBaker; they go back and forth for a bit, and in a thread with no other participants to that point, 'Ratbone' suddenly shows up to announce "I agree with Keit..... One suspects that if Steve was actually a researcher in Philips Display and Television Group, then from the misinformed nonsense he wrote, he was probably in cabinet design or something."
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 March 5#Does drinking water right after a meal makes us fatter? is interesting, as it introduces another pseudonym: Floda. 'Wickwack' offers a response, Alterprise demurs, and then 'Floda' (another Telstra IP) pops in with "It would appear that Wickwack is correct..." before Wickwack returns to further agree with himself.
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 6#turning flourescent lights off and on features 'Wickwack', 'Floda', and 'Keit'. They don't appear to be up to no good, but it's just plain weird to run through three aliases just answering a question about fluorescent tubes.
- Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 January 18#Seismic morse code starts with responses by 'Ratbone' (among others); 'Ratbone' becomes increasingly vexed by disagreement with another IP. After three 'Ratbone' posts, 'Keit' appears to lend support: "Didn't you read anything that Ratbone and SteveBaker wrote? Information theory, as both have outlined, is a well established branch of science...". 'Ratbone' then returns to make another five or so comments in the discussion.
- ...and I'm losing interest in looking for more. If you do a Wikipedia-namespace search for pairwise combinations of Ratbone, Keit, Wickwack, and Floda, anyone can find dozens of Ref Desk pages where they show up together, often to offer mutual support and endorsement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just to ping someone reading; this has been open for a few days now, at least 2 have gone by without any further comment. Can we get an uninvolved admin to evaluate the discussion? --Jayron32 03:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks as if the 'Supports' have it, but there is strong consensus too for a last chance. However, rather than giving him more incentive to game the system, I would suggest simply deleting their posts (with edit summary 'IP sock') very quickly each time until he gets fed up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Support. Just do it already, if we have another Jarlaxleartemis/Colourwolf/Bambifan101/Kagome85 or anything even remotely like that again I'll probably chalk it up to a "another attempt at being a Jedi Sock Master." 173.58.58.122 (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the intent of the Last Chance votes is to effectively ban the user now, with the condition that if he registers there'll be no problem with that use under good (i.e., non-sock) behavior. In other words, a ban wouldn't extend to a registered account unless the other behaviors continued. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support topic ban unless this person registers, per Medeis’s Last Chance, and shows some understanding of WP:SOCK.—Odysseus1479 01:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Additional evidence: The IP 120.145.145.21 signed as Wickwack [1], Floda[2] and Keit[3]. Modocc (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Just another datestamp ping to request that an uninvolved administrator close this, judge consensus, and do what they see fit. --Jayron32 21:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
RFPP unprotect requests
User:Webclient101 added 26 requests to the unprotect section of WP:RFPP. I looked at a few of them, and they are all related. In 2011, User:Dabomb87 semi-protected the articles indefinitely because the pending changes trial was over. Webclient101 wants to reenable pending changes. Dabomb87 hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of last year, so they can't be consulted.
My recommendation is we unprotect the pages without pending changes. Indefinite anything needs to be justified, and it's not clear to me why these articles have been semi-protected for two years, or why we should continue it, even with a lower level of protection. Obviously, if editing becomes disruptive on any article, it can be taken back to RFPP and an admin can evaluate whether protection is warranted.
If there's agreement with my recommendation, I will go through all of them, insure they fall within the same pattern, and unprotect them.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- For the sake of prudence, I would say change SPP to PC1 for the BLPs, and unprotect the others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Salvidrim here. As this would in line with the request, it wouldn't be contentious to do so. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 14:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Template:2c Some of these were semi'd before the trial for BLP violations. In my opinion, those should remain as-is. As for the rest, they should probably be unprotected. WikiPuppies bark dig 14:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies bark dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [4] [5] WikiPuppies bark dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but both accounts were autoconfirmed through the vandalism. WikiPuppies bark dig 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Both edits were (obviously) done by auto-confirmed accounts, so their significance is marginal.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) These are the diffs I am referring to...although I should have said "one year". [4] [5] WikiPuppies bark dig 15:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Six months from when? They've been semi-protected for two years.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- If they're subjected to a large amount of vandalism, they will be protected as needed. Looking at the page history, neither of them have been vandalized for over 6 months, so protecting them is a solution waiting for a problem. WikiPuppies bark dig 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- PC for high-traffic pages rarely works out well. We cannot know if they would be frequently edited by non-(auto)confirmed editors due to the two years of SPP. If, once unprotected, vandalism becomes too much to reasonably handle with reverts, it is never too late to apply protection again; at least, then, we'll know for sure that it is absolutely needed. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 15:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree with Salvidrim. However, pages like toast and sound will always be a popular target for vandalism. Why shouldn't those pages have pending changes enabled? Webclient101talk 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, I was unaware of that bias. I'll wait for more comments, but if there's a consensus to keep some sort of protection on the BLP articles, that's fine, but I wouldn't take the laboring oar to implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I will admit a bias that says all BLPs should have indef PC1 at a minimum, so that would be agreeable with me, yes. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Indefinite PC1?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- While I tend to prefer, as Dennis, the idea of some level of PC for BLPs, I'm not sure that some of the BLPs wouldn't be best unprotected. As one example Michael Hastings (journalist)'s moment in controversy has probably passed us by, he very well might do fine unprotected. In the general case, the PC mechanism we have now functions more poorly if too many articles are put onto it, and/or if high-volume articles are put onto it. Obviously Michael isn't a problem there either way, but I think there's some argument for being selective about the use of PC. For the non-BLPs, I'd unprotect most of them, but each should still be assessed individually, there's some odd history to Wheely Willy, for example. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I would note above that the lack of recent vandalism lately doesn't show that protection isn't needed, only that protection has worked, since they have been protected. I think it is clear from reading above that each article will likely have to be decided on its own merits, and likely a blanket level for all of them won't be optimal. I am still of the idea that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to BLPs, but that doesn't mean they all must be protected as a rule, as the consensus doesn't support that, yet. I would say just use your best judgement for each individually. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
For history, the articles were indefinitely semi-protected because of an Arbcom overstep. When the PC1 trial was over, I was actually blocked and taken to Arbcom for exercising judgement in the removal of PC1. The mandate from Arbcom was to replaced all PC1 protections with semi-protection of equal length. The result is that many articles wound up with indefinite semi-protection when no protection at all was actually justified.—Kww(talk) 17:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit. Any level of "protection" is a deviation from the intended design, done only because of abuse. When people don't know what the status of an article should be, the default choice should always be to make it fully accessible, then watch what happens. It should further be stressed that Pending Changes has become a mechanism whereby articles are less accessible to edits than semi-protected articles, thanks to a long-planned and ostensibly unintended "feature" that editors with accounts can still have their contributions held up behind an IP. Many people are not going to put up with this and just not do anything to the article, and since articles still usually improve, that is worse for the "LP" than if we allow open editing. Wnt (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Support unprotection per Bbb23's original post and Wnt. NE Ent 01:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wnt focuses too much on the "anyone can edit" part and misses the part that matters, the fact that we are an encyclopedia. We have a duty and missikon to get things right. If we focused on the "anyone can edit" issue, we wouldn't have any type of protection, pending changes, or blocks/bans. SirFozzie (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If there has been no recent problems and no solid reason to believe there are Huns at the gates, I'd say unprotect. Pretty much per Kww and our actual policies on such things WP:PROTECT. And SirFozzie, your statement is what scares a lot of us about pending changes. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- If the fact that we're an encyclopedia and have a duty and mission not to harm others willy nilly scares a lot of people, then I'd suggest the people realigning their priorities. SirFozzie (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- We've been that for a long time. We've gotten there by people editing articles. It has largely worked. If folks want to create a spin-off of Wikipedia that is more restrictive to people editing, I honestly think that's a good idea. But we've always been the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and changing that shouldn't be something that happens at a place like AN, it should be a site-wide discussion. In all seriousness, I have thought about having two levels of Wikipedia. One that has been highly vetted and only has "important" topics (whatever that means) and has a very small set (100s?) of folks who can edit, and one more wild-and-free. The serious one could draw from the good/featured articles of the other... I think it would work. And harm to others would be lessened because the "serious" one would be (more?) commonly used. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- This sounds sufficiently similar to, yet somewhat less ad hoc than PC2. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- We've been that for a long time. We've gotten there by people editing articles. It has largely worked. If folks want to create a spin-off of Wikipedia that is more restrictive to people editing, I honestly think that's a good idea. But we've always been the encyclopedia anyone can edit, and changing that shouldn't be something that happens at a place like AN, it should be a site-wide discussion. In all seriousness, I have thought about having two levels of Wikipedia. One that has been highly vetted and only has "important" topics (whatever that means) and has a very small set (100s?) of folks who can edit, and one more wild-and-free. The serious one could draw from the good/featured articles of the other... I think it would work. And harm to others would be lessened because the "serious" one would be (more?) commonly used. Hobit (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- If the fact that we're an encyclopedia and have a duty and mission not to harm others willy nilly scares a lot of people, then I'd suggest the people realigning their priorities. SirFozzie (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Interaction ban proposed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I would like to propose an interaction ban between User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz on the one hand, and User:GiantSnowman and User:Demiurge1000 on the other hand. Things like this have been proposed recently in a non-binding manner, e.g. here and here, following a long history of problematic interactions (often involving other users as well, but these three seem to be the more constant factors in this). Earlier problems have lead to blocks (e.g. my block of Kiefer Wolfowitz on 6 May 2013, explained here and discussed over the next few days). Now we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2 and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Mattythewhite 2, with another rather uncivil discussion between Kiefer Wolfowitz and Giant Snowman, and with Demiurge discussing Kiefer at User talk:Lukeno94, which lead to a rather problematic reply by Kiefer Wolfowitz. Without going into who is to blame, who is right or wrong, or how this all started (it goes back at least two years, probably longer, but I don't want to start discussing old history again; examples can be found in e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kiefer.Wolfowitz: or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Personal attack and edit warring), I think it is time we put an end to this, preferably without further blocks or too much drama. Therefor, I propose an interaction ban between Demiurge and Giant Snowman on the one hand, and Kiefer Wolfowitz on the other hand; no discussing one another, no linking to statements made by the other, no replying to each other, no nominations of each others articles for deletion, no participation in a GA or FA discussion where the other is one of the main contributors of the article, ... The only allowable interactions would be normal forms of dispute resolution about each other (one may start an RfC or ArbCom case about the other; they shouldn't start discussing in a third-party process though). They would still be allowed to all !vote in discussions like RfA, but without replying to each other or referencing each other's !vote. Fram (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. The evidence presented is utterly inadequate to justify imposing an involuntary interaction ban. My comment to Luke was to inform him of the existence of an earlier RFC/U, after he had asked TRM about proposing one; I mentioned parts of the close of that RFC/U (worked out with great care by an independent administrator acceptable to all parties) about issues similar to those that concerned him; informed him of available options; and cautioned him to be aware of the sorts of responses that any of those options might receive from some other editors. This was not in the least combative. (KW's replies, by contrast; [8] [9]). Fram's other links are to (1) the RFC/U which Worm and I prepared in 2011, which was widely agreed to have been helpful in highlighting at least some issues that KW needed to address; and (2) KW's arbcom evidence where he attacked Worm, me, DGG, Elen of the Roads, and Scottywong (if any of those other editors react unwisely to an unusual RfA comment from KW in the future, will they be subject to interaction ban proposals too?). Neither of the other incidents listed, including the RfA madness which Stfg rightly describes as "grotesque" and which is the background to this whole incident, had anything to do with me - I did not comment at either. It's all very well (and indeed true) to theorise that if person X and person Y were blind to each other's existence then there would be less drama, but forcing an interaction ban down the throat of one of them, without any evidence of that person being responsible for disruption (I've never been blocked in any dispute I've had with KW, nor even close I believe), is more likely to cause drama than prevent it. As Stfg says, interaction bans rarely work very well. Leaping to an involuntary one, for the sake of perceived convenience, without evidence justifying it, would be very unwise. I also Oppose the suggested interaction ban between KW and GS. Plenty of other administrators have been described as "dishonest" or "abusive" or similar by KW, and as GS points out, some of them have had confrontations with him more than once. (The Rambling Man is a rather recent addition as far as I can remember, so may not fit in that category.) Why pick on GS? (One over-reaction for which he has apologised, and perhaps a mistaken comment somewhere in the distant past?) Is there a possibility that perhaps it's not all the targets of KW's ire that are at fault, but someone else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
GS and KW
KW blocked![]() I have indefinitely blocked KW for this edit, which goes far beyond the bounds of acceptability, and really should be oversighted, or at least revdel'd (the edit summary is also a personal attack). Indefinite does not mean infinite, and I am not averse to the block being reduced in time (in fact, I will support a fixed length of time, once community consensus arrives at an appropriate length. This entire discussion has been acrimonious, but that is so heinous that someone who is not involved needed to step in. Horologium (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
The people happen to be young, because he appears to be giving an example of inexperienced people. Young people are more susceptible to manipulation, I don't think that is particularly controversial. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Core problems addressed?Guys, are you sure these proposed interaction bans and recent blocks are addressing the core problem, or just the symptoms? Are there any behavioral problems by the three parties involved that need to be addressed besides imposing interaction bans? Is there any merit to the allegations being leveled by the parties against each other? Don't know? Then why don't you administrators do your jobs, investigate this situation total, and come to a conclusion instead of just trying to put a band aid over it. Cla68 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
A fundamental breakdownI want to follow on from comments made to User:Ched above. The above threaded discussion has gone completely awry of the WMF's zero tolerance policy. Just as Kiefer would be banned if he had cast aspersions of pedophilia, it is as intolerable to make accusations against Kiefer that he did make such statements, if he didn't. I've seen a lot of very direct allegations that somewhere along the line, need to be corrected. I supported the block because I observed the disruptive behavior. And I observed that Kiefer did not cross that line into violations of "child protection" policy and zero tolerance. So how do we reconcile this?--My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Block duration for KWThe blocking admin has asked us to comment specifically on the appropriate duration to see where consensus lies so I will start that process below and hope others will comment as well.
Two weeks max and then impose a 2-way interaction ban with Demiurge1000 per BK. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by KWcopied from the editor's talk page I have stated my concern with a long-term mostly low-intensity conflict in which high-intensity conflicts happen, often because Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors. Because of WP demographics and because of the obvious, such naive editors tend to be young men, perhaps boys. When somebody complained about the sentence, I first clarified my intention and asked that somebody strike it for me, because I had been immediately blocked and could not remove it myself. Evidence or retraction requestedKW's statement above contains the text "Demiurge1000 has been manipulating inexperienced persons found among WP's editors". I'd been led to believe that making accusations about other editors without providing evidence, is unacceptable. So, where's the evidence? (And I don't just mean "you posted a notification on another editor's talk page and that editor happened to be under the age of 25", or "you gave a barnstar to someone after an argument". I mean actual evidence to categorically support what's being alleged.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
QuestionThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Some editors are offering the IVote Indefinite. Does this mean a Site-Ban by the community, or does this mean to keep him hanging until some unspecified criterion is met? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Talk page protectedThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. The combative discussions continued on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz so I've given it a days full protection. I've had a couple of requests to unprotect at User talk:Salix alba#KW talk page and Kiefer has emailed for it to be unprotected. I'm inclined to let to protection run its course, but if any admin want to change it that fine.--Salix (talk): 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
![]()
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Eric CorbettThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is this his attempt at humour? Other editors really shouldn't have to accept a constant undercurrent of incivility from a small group of editors just to try to improve Wikipedia. I think he's trying to make a case for User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz by being even more incivil and by lodging new personal attacks to distract from the original... user:j (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring. Please support new policy proposal.The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A bored spotlight-seeker trolling for attention with ambiguous wording is blocked and there's a gratifying storm of response. This whole thread about one of our favourite incivility stars covers 67% of the Administrators' noticeboard right now, by my simple measurement. (It's 34,5 screenfuls on my good big monitor.) Meanwhile in another part of the galaxy (ANI), there's a dry-as-dust attempt to defend the integrity of Wikipedia articles by topic-banning a long-running manifestation of a self-promoting sock/meat-puppeteer. Old arbitration case about it is here, ANI thread about the topic ban here, with its currently three comments (which is about — starting to count — losing my place — oh — it's currently about one fiftieth of the number of comments made above on the block length alone), which is hardly enough for a topic ban, at least I don't think it would be proper to institute a ban on such a "consensus". The contrast got me thinking about making "Civility blocks are sexy, articles are boring" policy, as it already is our practice, and I'm just floating it here in the hope of a good start-up discussion before I create the RFC.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Looking for a few good admins
It's that ole pain in the ass Beeblebrox with his giant policy RFCs again, looking for some volunteers to get on board to administrate and eventually close Wikipedia:Reference desk/Refdesk reform RFC, which has just opened. Potential benefits include harassment, trolling, and the near certainty that no matter how you close it you will be accused of some sort of wrongdoing. Sounds great, right?
Actually I'm not sure this one will be so bad, its bound to be a cakewalk compared to the pending changes rfcs. I need somewhere between two and four admins or other experienced users to keep things under control and determine where consensus has led us when it is all over. I'd like to get that locked in now while we are still pretty early in the process, it's only been open for about a half an hour. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would be happy to be a part of the conclusion of this RfC if you're not opposed to me wanting to help. Technical 13 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- You voted in the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did vote after I made this offer, but am not participating in any discussions or really arguing for any of the possible outcomes as I really don't care. If that vote excludes me from helping tally up and determine the consensus, that is not a big deal to me and I have no problem being excluded from that task. As a side note, there seems to be too many options available and it is heavily diluting the voting pool and consensus may be difficult to pull out of it. I believe it is going to end up being that two or three options will be left standing out of the
eightten options and will those will need a second RfC to allow the people who supported one of the other seven or eight to refine their position. I know that is probably blatantly obvious to some, but sometimes seeing the obvious spelled out is useful. Technical 13 (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did vote after I made this offer, but am not participating in any discussions or really arguing for any of the possible outcomes as I really don't care. If that vote excludes me from helping tally up and determine the consensus, that is not a big deal to me and I have no problem being excluded from that task. As a side note, there seems to be too many options available and it is heavily diluting the voting pool and consensus may be difficult to pull out of it. I believe it is going to end up being that two or three options will be left standing out of the
- You voted in the RFC. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I am not an admin, but I do consider myself part of the "experienced users" group. I also have absolutely no predisposition towards any outcome, as the ref desk isn't an area I've ever spent any time at. I have experience doing difficult closes over at Wikidata (or at least, as difficult as they get over there), and I'd be willing to be a closer here. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to help close but not moderate. I have experience doing this - I was one of the three closers of the Muhammad images RfC and am assigned to close the Jerusalem RfC. I don't have any strong opinions about the refdesk or any other COI. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- So far the only proposal getting significant support is "status quo", so this might not actually be all that difficult to close :-). Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If I don't participate, I'll help out. Can't be as bad as the last one I closed. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well finding volunteers certainly isn't seeming as hard as it has sometimes been in the past. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pick and choose who does what myself, if you all want to organize a team of closers that would be great, but it might be good to have at least one person willing to keep an eye on the rfc and the talk page while it is underway as there is already some personal acrimony seen there. (and of course me and my motivations are being attacked, but I fully expected that so don't worry about it.) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- per consensus: "good admins" = "do not exist". — Ched : ? 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are a figment of my imagination; and many others as well.--My76Strat (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am not an admin, and not sure if I'd be considered qualified to help either. But if I am, I'll indeed be happy to. Leave me a message on my talk, if you want me to. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can help if need be. For my sins. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
what's with Category:container categories??
this category, Category:15th-century_Ottoman_people, is NOT a container category!!!!!
who decided to add hundreds of categories to Category:container categories which are NOT container categories???!!
Container categories are only supposed to contain other categories, not pages!!!!
who decided to add all of these??? not only does it make "container categories too unwieldy to use, it is not accurate!!!
just wanted to let you know. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- The {{container category}} template was added in THIS DIFF by Takabeg at 06:43 on August 30, 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technical 13 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Question: well, ok. i am going to try to rectify this somewhat. let me know any thoughts. do you agree it is okay to remove {{container category}} from categories such as this one? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I was not part of the creation of that template and do not entirely care of it's purpose. I do believe that this excludes me from making any decisions or offering any advice as to what you should or shouldn't do on this regard except to say that you should probably be BOLD and if you get REVERTED, I would suggest pointing to this discussion on the talk page for the category and DISCUSS it with whomever reverted your edit. It should be evident pretty quickly if you are going to find some middle ground or not and I would probably request a 3O sooner than later in this case. Anyways... Good luck! Technical 13 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, as an after thought, I should probably note here that I'm not an administrator, in case you are not aware. Technical 13 (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Question: well, ok. i am going to try to rectify this somewhat. let me know any thoughts. do you agree it is okay to remove {{container category}} from categories such as this one? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's okay User:Technical 13, not to worry. --AlldiRessie (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Notification of a TFA nomination
History of Gibraltar has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article on 13 July to mark the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Utrecht. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 10:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Akuri repeated unblock request
- Akuri (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Background. This user has made very few content edits and has been blocked by NuclearWarfare, with the block confirmed by AGK. Previous IP ranges were blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Timotheus Canens. Salvio Giuliano has also commented on the account. The editing is similar to the arbcom-blocked accounts Zeromus1 and Mors Martell, both of which have too many on-wiki similarities with the editing of the site-banned user Captain Occam and his friends. The concentration on wiki-litigation and engaging with previously unknown administrators, often targets of Captain Occam, indicate that Akuri is another account like Zeromus1 and Mors Martell. There have been many inconsistencies in his explanations of why he has edited using VPNs, webhosting services and open proxies, but Zeromus1 and Mors Martell were no different. His cumulative edits share many characteristics, including familiarity with arcane wikipedia processes and a back knowledge of history stretching back to 2010. He has engaged in gamesmanship and a single purpose pursuit of wiki-litigation of exactly the same kind as Captain Occam, his friends and enablers.
Unblock request. Akuri has made yet another unblock request. In that request he has engaged in the same type of checkuser-related wikilawyering that Ferahgo the Assassin attempted during the WP:ARBR&I review in April-May 2012. There she tried to wikilawyer based on an edit of Captain Occam to his user talk page. Now Akuri is trying to use recent edits by Captain Occam for similar purposes to wikilawyer against the judgement of checkusers/arbitrators. I added a brief comment after Akuri's unblock request (as I did following similar requests by Echigo mole socks), but Akuri, in full wikilawyering mode, decided to ban me from his talk page. As a suspected sockpuppet or meatpuppet his account is clearly not in "good standing." On his talk page he has invented unsupported claims of pre-existing disputes just as Captain Occam, his friends and enablers did. From the moment it was registered, Akuri's account has been disruption-only. If as before his unblock request is declined, please could his talk page access also be revoked? Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've declined the unblock on procedural grounds, the basis for the request is invalid. We don't use Checkuser processes for that purpose. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- NW has commented about the block.[17] Mathsci (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've entered this as an outsider, but it is blindly obvious to anyone who actually looks. Talk page access revoked. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment
Thanks for dealing with this. Mathsci (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment
- I've entered this as an outsider, but it is blindly obvious to anyone who actually looks. Talk page access revoked. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- NW has commented about the block.[17] Mathsci (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Admin locations
Is there a list anywhere of admins on en.wp by self-declared location? I'm curious about what the distribution is for those who have said where they are. — Scott • talk 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Don't think so, wouldn't be hard to create one if you wanted me to. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't seen one before, it would be interesting to look at! ·addshore· talk to me! 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't this a matter for WT:AN? I know there was a similar discussion there recently re:political affiliations. GiantSnowman 11:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Well at any rate, keep a look at User:Moe Epsilon/Administrators by location as I populate it. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- One reason it'd be useful to know this is because we really could do with a few more admins who are active during 3am-7am GMT, especially on IRC. If we could work out where we are lacking in terms of time zone distribution, we might be able to strategically target some potential admin hopefuls to ensure full timezone availability. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The closest thing that I'm aware of is WP:HAU. However, this list isn't a large population of users nor is it exclusive to admins. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I love pages that don't even give a description of how they work. Perhaps we should put webcams in the bedrooms of all admins to find out if they're sleeping, regardless of which time zone they live in. Even that wouldn't be foolproof as I know a few admins who would no doubt feign sleep to avoid having to use their tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Are we at all worried about the potential converse of this? Do we really want every long-term abuser to have a detailed list of when admins are in short supply? (I know the stewards specifically refused to compile a list of their timezones for this very reason.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Users/administrators aren't forced to disclose any information about themselves. Anything on here is already on-wiki information, which is already displayed right on their userpage. Most of them are already categorized into
Category:Wikipedians from _______
. I don't see the harm in getting names of willing admins into one place. Potential abuse of something benign shouldn't discourage us from doing things anymore. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC) - Heh PinkAmpersand, the time zone I am in does not really reflect when I am active in :) Also as Moe said, the infomation is all there already, I see no real issue with the list. ·addshore· talk to me! 23:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Users/administrators aren't forced to disclose any information about themselves. Anything on here is already on-wiki information, which is already displayed right on their userpage. Most of them are already categorized into
- The closest thing that I'm aware of is WP:HAU. However, this list isn't a large population of users nor is it exclusive to admins. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't this a matter for WT:AN? I know there was a similar discussion there recently re:political affiliations. GiantSnowman 11:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't seen one before, it would be interesting to look at! ·addshore· talk to me! 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've been meaning to ask for a while, guess this is as good as any place to do so -- I don't want flashy userboxes, but I wouldn't mind populating categories. Is there any reason not to manually add categories to my userpage that would normally be applied by a userbox? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, proper categories are just fine, same as they are for anyone else. For instance, I've manually added Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks to my page previously. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- That reminds me, Addshore suggested I create and add myself to Category:Wikipedia Administrators whose first action was to block themselves... hehe. In any case, thanks for the reply, I'll categorize myself at some point. *adds it to evergrowing To-Do list* :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I know, proper categories are just fine, same as they are for anyone else. For instance, I've manually added Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks to my page previously. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 00:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Personal attack by User:Tabarez
I reported a personal attack of a user here. Apparently it's now archived. What does it means? What should I do now? None of the admins answered me here.Farhikht (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- You were both given some advice and the thread disappeared. Did you expect a block or something? Has the situation continued/been repeated? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't expect a block. But I think that a clear warning is necessary for him.Farhikht (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any time a translation from Persian to English is required in order to view the personal attack, we are just asking for mistakes to happen at an administrative level, and relying on Google translate would be a fool's game here. As he was warned, I suggest waiting to see if that previous warning gets the desired result. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I know he was warned multiple times for other issues, not for this one. I insist because he didn't apologize.Farhikht (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is a forced and insincere apology going to solve anything? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then is there any other option? He wasn't even warned for his insult.Farhikht (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I reported a COI issue regarding this user's activity which stayed unanswered as you see here.Farhikht (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dealing with that requires an editor or admin that speaks Persian, a rarity at the English Wikipedia. As I pointed out, we can't rely on Google Translator. I'm not sure how to help here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- The problem was that his English was not good enough and I thought that maybe because of that he ignores warnings. So I spoke to him in Persian.Farhikht (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Dealing with that requires an editor or admin that speaks Persian, a rarity at the English Wikipedia. As I pointed out, we can't rely on Google Translator. I'm not sure how to help here. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 19:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Also, I reported a COI issue regarding this user's activity which stayed unanswered as you see here.Farhikht (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Then is there any other option? He wasn't even warned for his insult.Farhikht (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Is a forced and insincere apology going to solve anything? Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 17:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- As I know he was warned multiple times for other issues, not for this one. I insist because he didn't apologize.Farhikht (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Any time a translation from Persian to English is required in order to view the personal attack, we are just asking for mistakes to happen at an administrative level, and relying on Google translate would be a fool's game here. As he was warned, I suggest waiting to see if that previous warning gets the desired result. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 16:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, I don't expect a block. But I think that a clear warning is necessary for him.Farhikht (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Unless my Farsi is way off base, I don't see an insult. I'm rusty, but it looks he's saying "you're right", not "you're stupid". At any rate, this is why you should speak English on the English Wikipedia. It's in the past. There may be other issues, such as COI or something, but the insult (if there even was one) is over and has not been repeated. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a native in Farsi and it's clearly an insult. Why I should complain about someone who is saying that I'm right?! This is my first complain about an autoconfirmed user since I'm -or try to be- tolerant.Farhikht (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, just go with my last sentence. Be tolerant, get past it, and speak English from now on. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. And thanks to both of you for spending time on this.Farhikht (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've poked a Farsi speaker (over on meta ) to come take a look at this. He's part of the OTRS over there, so it shows he's a trusted user, at the very least. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. And thanks to both of you for spending time on this.Farhikht (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- If the discussion is over this edit, I believe this warrant at least a warning, users tone is way out of Wiki etiquette Mardetanha talk 17:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- In that case, just go with my last sentence. Be tolerant, get past it, and speak English from now on. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 00:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a native in Farsi and it's clearly an insult. Why I should complain about someone who is saying that I'm right?! This is my first complain about an autoconfirmed user since I'm -or try to be- tolerant.Farhikht (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
This is starting to get silly. A lot has happened since that edit, including Tabarez and Farhikht both being blocked for edit warring. There has been plenty of discussion on Tabarez's talk page, which he has chosen to blank (as is his right). There’s no point in a vindictive warning a week after the fact. Besides that, anyone could have warned him at the time. Warnings from admins don’t have any special powers. If he has said something similar today, feel free to warn him. If not, get over it. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kafziel, Mardetanha is the OTRS member I poked from Meta, he's a native Farsi speaker. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I got that (and I believe Farhikht anyway - as I said, my Farsi is very rusty, so I trust him), but I just don't know what anyone is expected to do. It's not an admin matter. Farhikht seems to be looking for "an eye for an eye" but he's not going to get that here, especially not after more than a week has gone by. Thousands of slights like this go unanswered every day. I agree that there are pressing issues with these users and those articles, but this is not one of them. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- For me that block story was very unfair since I was blocked when I requested a page protection because Tabarez started an edit war, I reverted his edits then he reverted mine, I left and I post a request at RPP to protect the page, and the last version wasn't mine. Some hours later when I came back to WP I saw that Bbb23 has blocked me. Nothing more has happened after that edit. Anyway, I don't expect a block, but Tabarez must learn how to treat others here. By the way, I understand that this is not an admin matter. And the fact that both of my requests (COI and this one) went unanswered and being blocked at the same time is a little disappointing.Farhikht (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I can understand your disappointment. Unfortunately, these things happen all the time. Next time it happens, feel free to come directly to me.
- For what it's worth, I'm willing to take a closer look at the COI issues at those articles. But it's a lot to look at, and I won't have time to get into it until next week. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 22:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- For me that block story was very unfair since I was blocked when I requested a page protection because Tabarez started an edit war, I reverted his edits then he reverted mine, I left and I post a request at RPP to protect the page, and the last version wasn't mine. Some hours later when I came back to WP I saw that Bbb23 has blocked me. Nothing more has happened after that edit. Anyway, I don't expect a block, but Tabarez must learn how to treat others here. By the way, I understand that this is not an admin matter. And the fact that both of my requests (COI and this one) went unanswered and being blocked at the same time is a little disappointing.Farhikht (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I got that (and I believe Farhikht anyway - as I said, my Farsi is very rusty, so I trust him), but I just don't know what anyone is expected to do. It's not an admin matter. Farhikht seems to be looking for "an eye for an eye" but he's not going to get that here, especially not after more than a week has gone by. Thousands of slights like this go unanswered every day. I agree that there are pressing issues with these users and those articles, but this is not one of them. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kafziel, Mardetanha is the OTRS member I poked from Meta, he's a native Farsi speaker. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Question on barnstar
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/I_IZ_SERIUS_ADMNIM_THIZ_IZ_SERIUS_BIZNIS_lolcat.jpg/200px-I_IZ_SERIUS_ADMNIM_THIZ_IZ_SERIUS_BIZNIS_lolcat.jpg)
what kind of a barnstar is this? do we have sarcastic barnstars now?
I realize this note may get me another award of this barnstar. glad you guys have so much time for this. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Unintentional Humor Barnstar | |
- According to the image page:
The Barnstar of Humor may be awarded to particularly light-spirited Wikipedians who, by their unshakably good humor, consistently and reliably lighten the mood, defuse conflicts, and make the Wikipedia a generally better place to be.
- I hope you weren't offended by this! I certainly didn't mean it sarcastically. I was in the process of replying to your original question to see if you really meant it, and then when I saw you had removed it (with the edit summary "yow") it really made me laugh. The irony was awesome, and I assumed you meant it to be funny. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 20:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- oh ok. understood. ok, thanks for your note. that clears things up a bit. well, I was a bit unsure about that illusion. didn't want to start a whole thing over it. thanks for the laugh!!! :-) --Sm8900 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
AIV bots down
Just a quick note for admins: if you are going to be working on the WP:AIV queue, please note that the AIV helper bots seem to be down. Please remove blocked/resolved reports from AIV by hand. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like they're back :D Legoktm (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Interpretation of WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:NOTTRUTH Talk:Sega_Genesis#WP:BURDEN_and_the_FAQ
Currently the Talk:Sega_Genesis page has an FAQ relating the articles name, which - in my opinion - contains unverified statements. Given the article's name is now the subject of a large discussion and RfC, I feel the problems in the FAQ need to be addressed in order to prevent stifling debate or unduly influencing editors decisions with misleading information presented as fact. Therefore I have started a section on the talk page geared towards finding verification for these statements or removing them and have come up against a level of confusion regarding WP:BURDEN where some editors are insisting the onus is on me to find evidence these claims are false, rather than on them to provide evidence the claims are true. From what I can tell this isn't how WP:BURDEN works, as it clearly states:
"Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
(Emphasis in the original.)
I've pointed this out to the editors involved but the reply was:
"Your misunderstanding of this policy lies in this statement: "The burden ... lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That is meant to apply to new concepts as well as new prose. And when applied to this consensus discussion, the "added material" is the claim that parts of the FAQ are incorrect and should not be used to justify prior consensus. The fact that a consensus exists, no matter how flawed it might be, places the burden on YOU to convince everyone else to change it. You cannot retroactively expect the people who established that consensus to prove it - it's been there for several years and you are now the one to whom WP:BURDEN applies."
Which I feel is completely contradictory from what WP:BURDEN actually states.
The discussion in question: Talk:Sega_Genesis#WP:BURDEN_and_the_FAQ
Clarification from non-involved admins on this matter, one way or the other would be greatly appreciated. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was not familiar with the article, and so I took a couple minutes to look at the situation. It turns out that complaint here is not about the article, it is about an "FAQ" on the talk page about why the article has the title that it has. Apparently the title has been a longrunning point of dispute. Here is my opinion as an uninvolved admin:
- WP:V applies to article content. It does not apply to talk page content (although e.g. WP:BLP does apply everywhere). The talk page FAQ is free to summarize the discussions that have already happened. If you think the summary is incorrect or should be edited, that is open for discussion. However, WP:V is not a tool to change a talk page FAQ.
- If you wish to request the page be moved to a different title, please comment in the RFC that is already open on the talk page. If consensus is established to move the article, an administrator will move it.
- — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, fair enough. What would be the proper course of action to prevent the FAQ from including misleading and non-verified statements? I have no issue with the FAQ summarising consensus at the time, regardless of my opinion of that consensus, the issue is the FAQ also includes statements made as though they are facts, when no evidence for this is available. I feel some editors may be reluctant to accept any change to the FAQ as the unverified statements support their position on the naming dispute. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- These "FAQ" sections are not particularly common, so there is not much policy about them. The best advice I have is to develop consensus on the talk page. It may help to focus on a specific point where you feel you can give the most convincing argument. I do see your point that it can be hard to do this at the same time the RFC is open. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hm, fair enough. What would be the proper course of action to prevent the FAQ from including misleading and non-verified statements? I have no issue with the FAQ summarising consensus at the time, regardless of my opinion of that consensus, the issue is the FAQ also includes statements made as though they are facts, when no evidence for this is available. I feel some editors may be reluctant to accept any change to the FAQ as the unverified statements support their position on the naming dispute. --85.211.130.47 (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)