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
Line 344: Line 344:
:::But as you well know, there was an extremely lengthy debate at Village Pump several weeks ago about the exclusions. And at that time, the IP template exclusion was not on there. It was added/readded by Toddst1 two weeks later. So no one is debating that it's on the list ''now''; the only issue whether there is a requirement or not for it to be displayed at the top of the page. Simple. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.109.155|76.189.109.155]] ([[User talk:76.189.109.155|talk]]) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
:::But as you well know, there was an extremely lengthy debate at Village Pump several weeks ago about the exclusions. And at that time, the IP template exclusion was not on there. It was added/readded by Toddst1 two weeks later. So no one is debating that it's on the list ''now''; the only issue whether there is a requirement or not for it to be displayed at the top of the page. Simple. --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.109.155|76.189.109.155]] ([[User talk:76.189.109.155|talk]]) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
::::These threads reinforce my concerns. This drama has a parasitic effect, consuming the time of others without bestowing any benefit to them or to the encyclopedia. Sweet words or no, you have become a time vampire. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
::::These threads reinforce my concerns. This drama has a parasitic effect, consuming the time of others without bestowing any benefit to them or to the encyclopedia. Sweet words or no, you have become a time vampire. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis&nbsp;Brown</b>]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User talk:Dennis Brown|2¢]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[WP:WikiProject Editor Retention|<small>WER</small>]] 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you want, Dennis? Should I chop a limb off? I said I'm sorry for being rude to some admins. And I meant it. I honestly don't care if I get banned or not if that will make everyone feel better. But either way, I regret the way I vented at people. So let's just settle the matter of whether the template is required to go at the top or not. Or do you just want me to stop editing altogether? --[[Special:Contributions/76.189.109.155|76.189.109.155]] ([[User talk:76.189.109.155|talk]]) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:54, 30 June 2013

    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

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible involvement of Admin in ARBPIA area

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 28 August 2024) Opinions vary; a summary of consensus (if any) as to whether there is involvement, and if so the scope, would be helpful. Thanks in advance. Levivich (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm willing to close this, but will wait a few days to see if Shushugah's new proposals go anywhere. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: - 8-11 editors have voted in Shushugah's proposals by now. starship.paint (RUN) 11:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'll let them keep running a little longer. I won't realistically have time to write a closing statement before the weekend, anyway. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 22:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:清风与明月_Continued_Tendentious_editing.

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 5 September 2024) Conversation seems to have ended, consensus seems to be that the user is an issue, but no clear consensus on what to do about it. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#CBAN Indef for User:Wikiprediger

      (Initiated 6 days ago on 7 September 2024) Restored from archive. Admin closure requested. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 14 September 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]
      I hope this doesn't mess up the bot, but I struck the two discussions that are already done, to make it clearer that only one discussion still needs to be closed (albeit the big one). TIA to anyone taking it on. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If by "the bot", you mean ClueBot III, which carries out the archiving, you will only "mess up the bot" if you use a level 2 heading, or edit below a line that says "above this line". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since nobody else has volunteered, I may as well finish what I started.  Doing... administrator recall. This one might take some time. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Going AFK for a bit. Will finish later this evening. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 05:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 103 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]

      Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:National Rally#RFC: What words should appear in the "political position" line of the infobox?

      (Initiated 86 days ago on 20 June 2024) RfC already expired on this very controversial article and a formal closure is needed to prevent future edit warring. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 83 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 68 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 68 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 60 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 59 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]

       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 13 September 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 56 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]

       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Voorts thanks for the close. TarnishedPathtalk 01:44, 13 September 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 51 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]

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

      (Initiated 48 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]

       Done Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC lead

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 5 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. Last comment 23/08/2027. TarnishedPathtalk 04:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine

      (Initiated 39 days ago on 6 August 2024) Talk:Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#RFC_Palestine Hi! calling for closers for this one, as well as interpretation of whether content should be placed back in in case of WP:NOCONSENSUS. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Rfc for Martin Van Buren's Lede Image

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 10 August 2024) Another infobox image RFC winding down. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Can someone close this before the opening editor pings any more projects. It's around eight so far. Nemov (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The opening editor needs to be warned about forum shopping. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      They were in that very RFC and went right back to doing it within a few days. Nemov (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I think AN/I is the appropriate place for that. I'm not going to encourage this sort of behavior by closing this discussion immediately, but other closers here might think differently. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, sorry for the confusion. I don't think it should be closed just because of the forum shopping. The RFC is nearing expiration. I just mention the pinging of projects in order to save the community time. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 10 August 2024) Hello. Please close this discussion. Prcc27 (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 32 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 28 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]

      Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Rename and re-theme ITN: request for an early close

      (Initiated 1 day ago on 12 September 2024) There is almost unanimous consensus to close this RfC early, but I think this needs an uninvolved closer. There's currently an ongoing RFCBEFORE discussion in anticipation of a workshopped RfC on the future of ITN, so a quick review of this close request would be greatly appreciated. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      5 to 9 (just counting heads) is not "unanimous". Neither is a list of several opposers supporting close (with one supporter "ambivalent", and one of the RFC opposers opposing the early close). And a rename proposal doesn't interfere with whatever other discussions you may be having. If some future discussion does even more - great - consensus can change, after all. RFCs run for 30 days. And this one should too. - jc37 21:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was referring to the discussion about an early close being nearly unanimous, not the RfC itself. A closer here will weigh the arguments and make an appropriate decision. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:10, 12 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 9 4 13
      TfD 0 0 1 3 4
      MfD 0 0 4 2 6
      FfD 0 0 2 0 2
      RfD 0 0 38 18 56
      AfD 0 0 0 4 4

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

      (Initiated 64 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 63 days ago on 13 July 2024) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_9#All-Star_Batman_and_Robin

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 22 July 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 11:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 19 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:Counterfeit_consumer_good#Proposed split

      (Initiated 497 days ago on 5 May 2023) The last comment was posted 8 months ago, and the nominator never specified which sections to split off. - Waterard, not water. talk - contribs 01:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done per WP:SPLITCLOSE. There is unanimous consent to split. I would ping the other editors who were involved in the discussion and see what they had in mind before performing the split. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Electrogravitics#Redo of merger with Biefeld-Brown effect

      (Initiated 282 days ago on 6 December 2023) a merge discussion related to Electrogravitics and Biefeld–Brown effect now without comments for 4 months; requesting a close by any uninvolved editor. Klbrain (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Hurricane Isaias#Proposing merger of tornado outbreak

      (Initiated 131 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:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 109 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 107 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 97 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 75 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 68 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: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#"File pages without a corresponding file"

      (Initiated 23 days ago on 22 August 2024) Needs uninvolved editor or admin to close the discussion. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations

      (Initiated 19 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]

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

      Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

      There is a backlog at WP:RM that takes up nearly half the page and extends more than a month back. It's clear from the talk page that there are a few non-admins who are trying to help close and perform non-controversial moves that lead to redlinks, but administrative powers are needed to address the growing number of moves leading to bluelinks (moves over a redirect) that non-admins can't perform. Any help would be much appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      {{db-move}} can be used by non-admins. But I'm not sure why anyone would want to close those things, admin or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the tip, Nathan. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I just non-admin closed a handful I found to be pretty obvious Calidum Sistere 04:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And thanks for your help too, Calidum. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussions in need of closure

      Thanks. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Is it this easy...

      ...to avoid accountability for your actions. I would be interested to hear opinions/comments on the following "hypothetical" example:

      • a user has had more than one report filed at ANI, by different users, within two weeks
      • the user was duly notified on his/her talk page for each report
      • during the time each report was active, the user was editing daily on Wikipedia
      • the user made no comment on any of the ANI reports
      • the first report has already been archived
      • the second report has concerns expressed by several users, but no response from the individual in question, after more than five days
      • failure to engage in a discussion at ANI is, in this example, an extension of some of the other disruptive behaviors which generated the reports in the first place

      Is it really that simple? Can someone engage in behavior which is of concern to other editors on Wikipedia, and then repeatedly choose to ignore ANI discussions without consequence? Disclosure: within the context of the hypothetical, I have neither reported the user to ANI nor am I the user being reported. Taroaldo ✉ 01:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This really isn't the right place for a question like this, But I'm at a loss as to where the right place would be, maybe the village pump?. However, I'll nibble. The answer would be no. Persistent non-response to an editor's complaint is not acceptable. Ok, if in the first instance of being reported to ANI, they don't show up but cease the behaviour that they were reported for then there is no issue. If the editor behaviour is raised at ANI again but by numerous editors then there is a case for a preventative block, pending admin investigation. This has happened before and will no doubt happen more in the future. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I couldn't figure out a better place to ask this question than here. It isn't really a hypothetical, but if I start citing specifics then there will be a third discussion open, which wouldn't be productive. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be a practical process in place to deal with this type of situation. Neither of the two reports I cited received any administrator comment — perhaps everyone was waiting for a response from the user. If a user is uncivil/disruptive in their interactions with other editors sufficient to get an ANI report every few weeks but is not so blatant as to attract immediate administrator intervention (i.e. outside of ANI), then that user can seemingly ignore the ANI discussions without consequence (so far as I have observed). Failure to manage this effectively will only serve to frustrate productive editors who may end up leaving the project as many have done before them. Taroaldo ✉ 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If there is, in fact, an actual issue with their editing, and there is consensus that there needs to be a block, topic-ban, etc. in response to it, then their lack of comment in the AN/I discussion has no bearing on things. They, presumably, read the notice, and chose not to comment in their defense (or otherwise...), then whatever remedy needs to be applied is applied regardless. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Taroaldo - It's impossible to comment without knowing the context of what drove you to this question. All we have is your perception. I thought I knew what you were talking about until you said there had been no admin comments and now I'm at a loss. I'll only say this: some ANI reports are frivilous and others arn't structured in a way that makes sense and a third group are disputes that admin's won't touch with a remote controlled robot and a 20 ft pole.--v/r - TP 01:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question is meant to be general but it was prompted by a real situation which still has one active report. I didn't feel it would be appropriate to provide diffs for illustrative purposes at AN while a report is still open at ANI. I have provided links on your talk page so you can see the full context. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem, Taroaldo, is that we can't make any definitive statements when you speak in pointed vagueries. Your initial post amounts to "Can we all agree that evil is bad?" If everyone agrees, so what? Unless we know exactly what situation you are talking about, we can't make any statements about whether or not the situation is or is not being dealt with properly. We have no way to even know if your characterization of the situation is accurate unless we can view the entirety of the situation with our own eyes and arrive at our own conclusions. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Advice please.

      I left an enquiry here with an administrator. As can be seen, the administrator concerned, User:Georgewilliamherbert, undertook to review the issue on May 23rd. But since then I have heard nothing from him, although (as can be seen) I have made a couple of enquiries on his talk page. Can someone advise me please on procedure in this situation? I still wish my enquiry to be addressed, as the editor who is its subject is still (in my opinion) stirring up related problems elsewhere. Should I, for example, place the situation on AN/I?Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, once you brought it here, you'll need to advise both Andy and George ... because posting it here is the equivalent to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, apologies for not appreciating the etiquette, I have never listed anything here myself before. I will therefore shortly list the whole shebang properly on ANI and advise both formally.--Smerus (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Done.--Smerus (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      New proposal for admins

      Boldly closing. I will be the first to admit we have some problems, and I'm often the first to get involved and try to find a solution. This isn't the solution, as PS himself has concluded. This was precipitated by a block that arguably had too low a threshold, but that isn't the same as abuse. We need to work on these problems but this isn't the way we will find a solution. I'm closing not to stop discussion, but to stop drama, as there is zero chance this proposal will pass, and it is in the wrong venue to start with. Lets go edit articles, reflect on this, and approach the problem with a fresh perspective tomorrow. Please. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Many recent incidents, not just the two concerning me vis a vis Jmh649 and Bwilkins (they have been notified), have me quite concerned about standards of admin behavior. Those two admin both blocked me within the last two weeks and the blocks were unanimously overturned. Why do they feel it's okay to make such blocks?--because they know nothing will happen to them. The stigma of blocks cannot be erased. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bwilkins_block_of_PumpkinSky. How Bwilkins can think he was doing me a favor when he edit warred, protected the same page, and then blocked me is mind boggling. Look at comments by others in the thread. Essentially they say he violated every possible rule in this situation. And what are the repurcussions to me? NOTHING. Such incidents are getting more and more common. I'll let the other victims speak for themselves.

      And don't tell me you know how us non admins feel unless you have been on the receiving end of such actions. And don't tell me admins are just users with some bits--we all now that's hogwash and there are special rules for admins. And people wonder why participation in wiki has been nosediving for 6 years.

      So, to raise the standards of behavior of admins and make them think before they act, I have a new proposal:

      • "Any admin who blocks someone and said block is overturned as being unwarranted shall be blocked themselves for the same amount of time."

      It's high time admins got a taste of their own medicine around here and acted like admins should be acting. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • I would oppose that because it would be trivial for me to game that on IRC to get any admin blocked, and I'm sure it would be just as easy for anyone else to game. This is the wrong solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose That looks to me like the very definition of a punitive block. Aside from giving the admin "a taste of their own medicine", what possible benefit is derived for Wikipedia from this proposal? Not to mention the obvious fact that this would be hugely open to abuse. I realise that you're pissed off, PumpkinSky, but this strikes me as an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to your recent block; it's contrary to the blocking policy and contrary to basic common sense. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Well, I know that I always think before I act. My post on ANI this morning, significantly after the well was poisoned by overnight discussion, shows that my thought processes were extremely clear and correct - and although some apologies for the thoroughly non-AGF responses by my fellow-editors should be forthcoming, they never will - and that's fine with me. There's no consensus that the block was unwarranted, and penalizing anyone for doing what they believe is protecting the project will lead to a) fewer admins, b) fewer admins willing to make difficult blocks (which this one was not, by the way), and therefore c) more damage to the project in the long run. Making ridiculous proposals when a) you're already pissed about ArbComm and b) your pride is hurt really does not help the project - this "proposal" was poorly thought out and was more reactionary than anything (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      You introduced the term "poisoned" into this discussion. I don't support the proposal because I think we need fewer blocks, not more, but your reaction seems to invite something like this. Like many others, I don't share your belief that your block protected the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • So of course an admin who removes his own bad block before he can be hauled off to ANI or ArbCom, while recording a false unblock notice that remains on the editor's record, would be exempt because his block wasn't technically overturned .... bzzzzzzzt. A good strategy, and one that can be gamed with your suggestion. It's the internet; get over it already (and I disagree with the way you have framed the Bwilkins' block anyway). You got an unblock message in your log from someone uninvolved; quit whining already, especially when you sit by silently when what you perceive as a bad block happens to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the problem of WP:INVOLVED admins is being too quickly brushed aside on these boards, but the solution proposed by Pumpkin (tit-for-tat bad blocks) is silly. Arbcom once proposed a so-called administrative supervision (of admins), but I see no evidence it was ever used. There seems to be no practical, intermediate solution between doing nothing and desysopping by Arbcom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) x 2 This is the third time that this has happened to PumpkinSky. Editors will remember the notorious block of PumpkinSky by Moni3, two hours after she called him an "idiot" and a "dingus" (similar to conduct for which Hawkeye7 was desysopped). While I'm not certain that blocking in response is the answer, I think there is becoming an issue here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • PumpkinSky is upset, I get that and I understand it. If I am to be fair, I have to say that what I saw was a block that was done in good faith, but with too low a threshold. Bad cases make for bad law, etc. etc. I recommend closing this at the earliest reasonable time. What we need is admin to address their fellow admin who "mess up" and this has been happening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It's happening too much. You know what we went through yesterday to retain an editor, who while he may have been justly blocked, blew up as the result of gross admin baiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And I've injected myself in every one of these situations and others you may not be aware of, and in ways that aren't always published online. They aren't being ignored. That doesn't mean we can paint every situation with the same brush. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bwilkins' response shows he has zero understanding of the error of his ways. This proves that there are serious issues with today's admins corps. This may not be the best idea, but something needs to be done. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Facepalm, and strong oppose One of the most POINTy proposals in the history of Wikipedia, and an absolutely crazy one at that. Besides, given the way it is worded, this scenario could easily arise: Admin X blocks a sockmaster indefinitely. Said sockmaster stops socking, accepts the standard offer 6 months later, and is unblocked. Admin X, who was acting completely within policy, is now blocked indefinitely by Admin Y. Admin Z realizes this is stupid, and unblocks Admin X, and then has to block Admin Y in the process. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a complete waste of time this discussion is. Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Wikipedia has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Wikipedia provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Wikipedia becomes a lot easier.  Giano  12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost totally agree Giano, but felt compelled to bring this up, maybe just one admin will change for the better, yes that's a naive thought but eh. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you think anything that happens on Wikipedia is going to change the behavior of any "lusting for power in real life" admin, playing out their miserable frustrations by pounding on a keyboard, and then polishing their new brass buckles for their buddies after a high profile block, then you have failed to understand Giano's message. By the way, have you read WP:FLEAS lately? Or perhaps your own posts about "Karma" coming back 'round at 'ya? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose - Should Admin be blocked if they continually make bad blocks? Sure. But the wording of this proposal is ludicrous. Why would they be penalized the exact amount they were blocking someone else for? That could potentially be very disproportionate to the bad block they have done. I'm sorry if you were wrongfully blocked (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of your situation), but you need to cool off and think this out a little further. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      [ec](Forgive me I already had this typed out before it was closed, and I think it is relevant) Pumpkin Sky, a few months back, an IP was in dispute with BWilkins regarding his treatment of IPs and was dragging BWilkins to the dramaboards 2-3 times a day for a few days. I suggested to that IP that if they were to open and RFC/U on BWilkins that I would contribute my unpleasant experience with BWilkins. This would show a pattern, and I believe a few other instances would be brought up by other users, too. This thread will not result in anything, so as I suggested to the IP back then, please start an RFC/U if this issue continues to bother you enough, and I will throw in my 2 cents there. Rgrds. --64.85.217.10 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Infobox World Heritage Site TfD tag

      An admin is needed, please, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}; please see details at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

       Done --Salix (talk): 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

      Wikipedia:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. The RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Backlog at RFPP

      There's a sizeable backlog at WP:RFPP. I'm going to start wading through the requests now, however if a couple other admins would like to pop by as well that would be über-helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Deleting talk at talk pages, I need protection against WP:Harass

      Closed per WP:BOOMERANG. Lesson learnt.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Hi, I want to ask if the deletion [1] of my talk at this talkpage [2] is allowed? Because I was pointing out to something that seems to happen a lot, I noticed WP:Canvas.

      Some months ago I had a discussion with Alexikoua on the [3] and there after some day Athenean became involved and supported him[4], ultimately I was blocked by an admin because they accused me of non neutral(!) editing.

      Yesterday I was randomly reading the talkpage of Talk:Janina Vilayet when I noticed that there had been a discussion in 2011 and exactly the same users were supporting each other against another user. I do not know if this happened on other talkpages, probably it did. But these two users are not unrelated to each other, it seems they work together to influence discussions. So when I noticed this at that talkpage I wrote this as response [5] and immediately (because they control my edits)Athenean deleted my content, while Alexikoua threatened me with block [6]

      I also need help because Alexikoua is constantly WP:HARASS me, he is watching my edits and complaining to other users without notifying me. [7] [8], [9]. They threaten me on my talkpage with blocking, I tried to talk [10] with them but they seem to have a very personal dislike since several months. The reason is because I think I created one article (based on reliable sources but which I never could finish due to their opposition) Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres A Greek army massacre of Turks, but on the other hand Alexikoua himself is an active creator/contributor to (Turks massacring Greeks articles).[11][12] [13]. Athenean accuses me that I have an axe to grind with Greek people because I created that massacre. [14].

      Thank you. DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wait. You drop in on a two-years-old talkpage discussion you never had anything to do with, add a negative comment about two other contributors to it for no other reason than that they have been in a conflict with you on an entirely different article, and then you complain that they are harassing you? This calls for a boomerang. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly, there isn't any trace of wp:harass. The only case in which we can consider something as such is this one [[15]] (sarcastic comments targetting specific users) and no wonder such a unacceptable comment was quickly removed per wp:talk. Alexikoua (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The short answer is yes, it was appropriate to remove your comment. Talk pages are only for discussing how to improve the associated article. Your comment did not discuss the article atall and was properly removed. You were not threatened with a block, you were told if you continue you may be blocked for disruptive editing. GB fan 10:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      If Wp:canvass and WP:Harass is allowed I rest my case. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Canvassing and harassment are not allowed. You going to a conversation you were not involved in and making a comment such as the one you made is harassment and you should stop. As far as canvassing, I do not see where anyone has recruited other editors that are not involved in a conversation to join a conversation. GB fan 11:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      So, let's address your questions 1 by 1:

      1. Was the deletion of your talkpage comment allowed? YES - it was unrelated to improving the article at hand, and was also inappropriate in tone and substance
      2. Are you being harassed? No - it does not appear that anyone is specifically following your edits and trying to force you off the project

      Here's a couple of extra ideas for you:

      1. Do not accuse others of nationalistic editing without clear proof - you claim they dislike you because of an article you were involved in ... holding old grudges would be childish and unproductive
      2. Before accusing of WP:CANVASS and WP:HARASS, you should actually read them in their entirety in order to actually understand them, not just bits and pieces of them

      (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      After only 1 day, both Athenean and Alexikoua find out my edit on that talkpage, if they were not controlling all my edits all the time, how could they both ever find out my writing on a forgotten talkpage so quickly ? I gave the links to their accusations, I suspected them of canvass, I should not write that on the talkpage but I did that to point out to admins so they could see their joint actions to influence discussions, but as I see nobody is interested in this. Alexikoua is busy trying to block me by influencing other users I gave the links. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      How did they find that edit so quickly the probably have that page watchlisted so it showed up on their list when you edited it. GB fan 11:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      But I know I am guilty, and I am sorry to have pointed out their wp:canvass. So please block me very quickly for indefinite. DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      You haven't done anything you need to be blocked for at this point. GB fan 11:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) FA topic ban clarification sought

      CLARIFIED, MOVE ALONG
      It appears the matter has in fact been clarified, Andy is not banned from any talk pages by the scope of that topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Andy is presently under a topic ban [16] which states:

      User:Pigsonthewing is banned by the community from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day.

      A discussion has arisen at WP:ANI regarding possible breaches of the topic ban, where Andy has edited the Talk page of a Featured Article and where he has discussed a scheduled Featured Article on a WikiProject's associated Wikipedia Talk page. I believe in the best interests of all concerned, it would be useful to clarify what namespace(s) the topic ban should apply to and whether there should be any exceptions etc. I have no personal opinion on what namespace(s) the topic ban should explicitly state, and am raising this here as a procedural issue only. Thanks all, Nick (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This is now at last the sixth thread on this matter. The previous attempts to extend the clearly expressed coverage from articles to other pages have all been rebuffed, not least by the original closing admin. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Having been an arb, I can say that rulings that include talk pages explicitly state such. Since that ruling doesn't so state, Andy is free to participate in TFA related talk pages. Now people should stop beating the dead horse and drop the stick. PumpkinSky talk 13:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      As you 'can say', you can, then, supply us with instances where this ruling is explicitly evidenced? Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Please do not wikilawyer. Unless his topic ban specifically prevents discussions on article talkpages, then he is specifically allowed. This is SOP so that editors are not fully removed from areas of interest unless it becomes a necessity. PS: can someone remove the template from the section header so that it can archive successfully (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      PS Done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Drop the stick. This is SOP, here...if talk pages are included they are specifically mentioned in the motion.PumpkinSky talk 15:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User:88.231.61.88

      Removing information in articles and insulting in Turkish in comment line.--Chauahuasachca (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Eyes please

      this was brought to my attention. I had a very quick look at the contribs. I'm thinking there's a WP:CIR issue in the English language sense. I'm not really up for any drama, but I think it's something that should be looked at. I'll drop them a link to this thread now. — Ched :  ?  21:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I just saw another case a couple of days ago of a clueless editor accidentally creating pages in the category namespace using HotCat. Has some editing function changed recently that makes that an easy mistake? Looie496 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Now that you mention it I've seen the same thing. I've deleted that category and informed [17] the user they apparently were attempting to communicate with. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In answer to Looie's query, I have a suspicion that HotCat may have been enabled by default for new accounts since several months ago; this has the effect that when a new editor goes to another editor's talk page in order to communicate with them, they see a "+" symbol at the bottom of the page, in exactly the position where some other websites have a "+" symbol to click on for "add new post", and thus click it in order to add their message. (Although I'm not entirely sure that explains everything going on in this particular case.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Demiurge is correct. For the past few months a lot of new editors have mistakenly added categories thinking they were using an editing interface. Acroterion (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to know when and where it was decided to turn on HotCat by default. That doesn't seem like a real good idea, the category system here is not something a total noob should be diving right into. The fact that several of us have seen this same problem already would tend to support that idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Found it. On the one hand I am relieved that at least there was a discussion but it apparently did not occur to anyone that this was kind of a big decision and should have been listed at WP:CENT at the very least, not just decided by about ten users. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Many more than ten users have found it problematic. I brought it up at VPT a while back, and feedback was almost entirely against the measure as implemented. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Then I think it is time for a proper RFC on the matter. The figure of ten is about how many people seem to have particpated in that discussion, but in fact only four users voiced support for turning it on for all registered users on a permanent basis. This never should have been closed the way it was and it certainly never should have been implemented. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, if we can get it turned off for new users it would cut down on this mistaken category creating. --Rschen7754 22:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion is open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I've noticed a few blocked editors putting their unblock requests inside category statements too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Infobox Swiss town TfD tag

      Resolved
       – done -- Diannaa (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      An admin is needed, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox Swiss town}}. The markup needed is:

      {{Template for discussion/dated|page=Infobox Swiss town|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 29#Template:Infobox Swiss town|help=off}}

      ASAP, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      76.189.109.155 and drama

      76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      76 has been editing using this IP address since May 1, 2013. He has made many, many edits. Although I haven't looked at all of them, I would say his article edits are probably generally constructive. Outside of article edits, his behavior ranges from charming to obnoxious. Obviously, the reason I'm here is to find a way to eliminate - or at least drastically reduce - the obnoxious. Frankly, I think the only way to do it is through blocks, although I'm open to a creative topic ban that achieves the objective without blocks.

      As is clear from his edits, 76 has edited here before May 1. Somewhere he acknowledged that - can't remember where, but I don't think he's hiding it anyway. I believe he claims he's only edited as an IP and has never had a registered account. I have no way of verifying that.

      I believe I first became aware of his existence because of an incident in May that this ANI topic and this ANI topic partly reflect and that 76 turned into a major drama. Indeed, one of the reasons I am starting this topic is because of a new but related drama regarding 76's own talk page.

      The crux of the problem are these dramas. User:Dennis Brown expressed it reasonably well with this comment: "Mr IP, I'm a bit worried as to why you are here. Everywhere I look and see you, it is usually nothing but wikilawyering. I'm not saying you are wrong on every single point, but your main contribution to Wikipedia seems to be drama." 76 does not take kindly to criticism and responded in part: "I suggest you keep your passive-aggressive (and inaccurate) insults to yourself."

      The response to Dennis is a significant part of the problem. 76 likes discussing things with admins directly and on admin noticeboards. He kind of has two lists, those admins he likes (they agree with him or are at least nice to him) and those he doesn't. Admins swap back and forth on the lists depending on the most recent interaction between 76 and the admin. Currently, at least User:Bwilkins, User:Orangemike and Dennis are on the bad list. I've gone back and forth a number of times. I'm not sure where I am right now but if I'm not already on the bad list, I will be after I post this.

      As for Bwilkins and Mike, 76 is currently pounding them to death on their talk pages. He's kind of like an aggressive, self-righteous lawyer cross-examining a witness to get them to admit something. Unfortunately, there's no Wikipedia judge to limit the examination.

      The latest drama is the template {{dynamicip}}. User:Toddst1 added (re-added?) the template to 76's talk page. The IP removed it, and then there was a bit of a battle including my involvement. You can see discussions about it on my talk page and User:Jayron32's talk page. 76 questioned Todd about it, but Todd declined to discuss it and removed 76's comments. The last "compromise" suggestion by 76 was he would "permit" the template to remain on his talk page but not at the top of the page where these templates go because, says 76, policy doesn't require that it be on the top. I objected to that, but he went ahead and did it anyway. Last I looked, it was buried somewhere in the middle of the page, although he's been edit warring with various editors to keep it where he wants it.

      These dramas are a continuing drain on resources. At some point they outweigh the positive contributions 76 makes, but even if 76 is not a net liability to the project, he needs to be reined in. Although I've included some links, I'm not going to hunt down all the dramas and all the examples of 76's shifting opinions about admins and editors. Whether I am or not, I have decided I am involved. Therefore, I can't take any administrative action against him, even for the latest edit warring on his talk page and his self-serving interpretation of policy.

      I will notify 76 and some of the involved admins after I post this.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I agree that these dramas from this problematic IP are a continued drain on our resources. I see more antipathy towards admins than anything else from this editor. I followed the invective on user talk: Bwilkins from this editor and recognized this editor from a similar fiasco in May. Since I haven't used any administrative privileges, I felt free to walk away from the conversation given the long history of drama-mongering from this IP. I think this editor should have been blocked long ago for persistent WP:Battle and WP:Wikilawyering during this editor's short tenure here at his/her current sticky dynamic IP address. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      If 76.189.109.155 experiences such aversion to {{dynamicip}}, then I can propose to make another design of the dynamic IP notice, specially for him – if he likes it. But can I ask the community to ban 76.189.109.155 from user_talk:s of all users who experience an aversion to 76.189.109.155, of all who states that does not like him? I think it would be a reasonable compromise. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "Compromise" necessarily indicates that all parties are getting something but not everything they want. This is not a compromise. Making special templates and requiring a great number of admin to avoid an IP editor that isn't interested in building articles is not a compromise, it is a burdensome capitulation to an editor that is offering nothing of value to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure I've run across them before except to post that one notice regarding their behavior, an administrative task. Should I be required to avoid problematic IPs? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not that it's important for the decisions we have to make here, but you have interacted with 76 before now. For example, here (in a pleasant way) and here in a not-so-pleasant way with 76 taking potshots at User:Kudpung.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll say nothing (the history on my talkpage - yes, I removed a couple of posts) and the bizarre discussion on Orangemike's talkpage pretty much say it all. However, I'll correct one thing: I actually the IP likes OrangeMike ... after all, the IP claims I threw OM under the bus yesterday, and won't drop the sharp, pointy thing even when proven otherwise. Do with him what you will, but at least do something ... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      "at least do something... this is an effing ridiculous waste of resources and goodwill" +1 Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In view of the continued edit warring. WP:3RR has certainly been exceeded. I B Wright (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My quoted statement already presents my perspective. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but it has been disruptive. Users whose primary purpose is to be a social gadfly are not really here to build an encyclopedia, they are here for....something else, which I have no idea. I think poking the admin from time to time is probably a very beneficial thing, we are and should be fully accountable, but being a self-righteous and self-appointed full-time wikilawyer (particularly when your understanding of policy is dubious, at best) goes way beyond the role of "loyal opposition" and enters the realm of trolling. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      It has to be said that due to recent problems with IP editors, I have modified my view as to whether such editors should be permitted to edit in Wikipedia. But the people who have the power to decide these things have decided that they are acceptable and I have to respect that. However, it has to be said that this is the first time that I have come across an IP editor who is going out of his way to elicit an editing block. Maybe, it's some sort of rite of passage. I B Wright (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to apologize to all the admins I offended, especially the ones I really like. Especially Bbb23, who's a great guy. Let me make this simple. I'm upset because of the very disrepectul way OrangeMike was treated with regard to this ANI discussion. Please read my comments there. Mike was taken to ANI regarding a block, but no one ever even had a conversation with him first to try and resolve it. Yes, I was passionate there. Sometimes too passionate. But there were few defending him, until some wonderful admins - Bbb23, DGG and The Bushranger - came along and balanced the scales a bit. Because of my participation there, my reputation took an immediate hit, which I knew was likely to happen because I was the only IP participating. But I felt so terrible for Mike that I didn't care. So I'm not in the best mood because of that situation. And then, to top it off, Toddst1, with whom I had a little skirmish with about six weeks ago, came to my talk page an re-added the shared IP template that hadn't been there in all that time. He claimed I removed it improperly, but I explained to him that WP:BLANKING did not exclude it from being removed at the time I removed it in May. It wasn't until 16 days later, that Todd himself added (or readded) that exclusion to WP:BLANKING. So I went to his page to discuss it and asked Jayron32 if he would be a neutral mediator. I even said I was fine with having the template if it's required; my understanding through a long Village Pump discussion a few weeks ago was that the IP template was not something that would be enforced. In any case, I told Bbb that I'd be fine with having the template but said I'd like to put it lower on the page since there are no rules that say it must be displayed at the top of the page. Finally, I'd ask that some admins please look at my talk page history over the past hour or so and review the flood of edits by I B Wright and 155blue. I would respectfully ask that an admin educate them on that type of editing. Again, I'm sorry to the admins I annoyed and offended. And no, Bbb, you're not on my "bad list". :) I think most of the admins I've dealt with are great, actually. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem is you have a "bad list" as you refer to it. That's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Can someone please put forward a proposed sanction for community ratification? Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Todd, there is no bad list. That was a term used solely by Bbb. So I was simply alluding it to it in my comment, to let him know he's not on this "bad list" he talked about. ;) And I sort of thought it was funny. I've never even used the terms good and bad lists. That's apparently just Bbb's way of describing his perception of how I see things. But you can ask him about that. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, let me agred with BBB that you appear to have a "bad list." Beyond that you persist inclassic WP:BATTLE behavior and there is no place for that on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Proposal

      Given this IP's long pattern of acrimony and WP:BATTLE the editor currently editing at 76.189.109.155 is restricted from participating in discussions at noticeboards, may not blank his/her talk for 6 months. This restriction will persist if the user changes IPs. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the ban should be broader than the proposal but perhaps shorter in duration. There are two problem areas this proposal does not address, the harassment at user talk pages (obvious) and the problems in Wikipedia space other than at noticeboards (e.g., long protracted comments wanting to change WP:BLANKING). A more reasonable duration would probably be three months. Also, an exception to the noticeboard restriction would have to exist where 76 is clearly the subject of the discussion. BTW, I'm fairly certain that 76 has stated that he is male.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      How much more drama do you want here? I apologized sincerely and I meant it. Do you want a pound of my flesh? Are you trying to punish me or prevent something? Please let's not forget I have thousands of edits. I don't know how many. Maybe 2000, 3000. I have edited a lot of articles and participated in a lot of article discusssions. I tried to keep this simple. I was upset about Mike's treatment and I vented. I'm sorry about that. And I don't get this whole 1RR issue. The only revert issue is on my own talk page regarding this issue of whether the IP template has to go at the top or not. That's it. If there's a policy that says that, just show me and then we'll put the template at the top. Right now, it's on my page but just not at the top. So it's there and people can see it. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And Todd, I have every right to blank my talk page as long as it doesn't violate WP:BLANKING. Let's just settle the issue of whether it has to go at the top or not. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And why should I be restricted from noticeboards? Bbb23 said himself that I didn't cross any lines worth being blocked; just that I should tone it down. I will do that if I choose to participate at those boards. But honestly, I don't really like them. I was just passionate about that ANI because of the issue with Mike. So please stop all the attempts to be punitive here over issues that don't apply. I was rude to some admins on their talk pages and I feel bad about it. And it won't happen again. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit warring/talk page issues

      It's not just the admins that you have offended, your reasons for reverting edits which include "...stay the f[***] off of my talk page" are uncivil and have been offensive. If a welcome message is considered vandalism and moving an object to its proper place is disruptive editing, then what is right to do? In addition, it would be polite to notify me on my talk page the next that you mention me here.155blue (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      155blue, based on the numerous edits you made on my talk page, you apparently do not understand, or not aware of, WP:BLANKING, or the difference between a warning and a template. When someone asks you nicely to stay off their talk page and you come back and back and back and back, that's a big problem. The only way to get the message through to you was to be more assertive. And it worked. After I said, "i told you several times to stay the fuck off my talk page", you didn't return. ;) And as my history will show, I almost never use language like that. But I've never seen editors flooding someones talk page non-stop, like you and IB Wright did. And btw, you added an IP template to my page when there was one already there. In the future, when there is a contentious issue happening, you should let an admin handle it. But the last thing you should do is keep going back to someone's talk page when they ask you not to. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      In WP:BLANKING it states and I quote:
      "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes:
      Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction
      Miscellany for deletion tags (while the discussion is in progress)
      Speedy deletion tags and requests for uninvolved administrator help (an administrator will quickly determine if these are valid or not; use the link embedded in the notice to object and post a comment, do not just remove the tag).
      For IP editors, templates and notes left to indicate other users share the same IP address.
      {{Noindex}} added to user pages and subpages under this guideline (except with agreement or by consensus). Note this can safely be removed from talk pages and subpages where it has no effect. (see below)"
      (emphasis added)
      As the shared IP notice has to be placed at the top of the page, I fully understand what you can and cannot delete.155blue (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      155blue, most of the rest of us are fully aware of what WP:BLANKING says, so there was no need to paste the entire policy here. And I gave it to you, remember? Apparently, you weren't aware of them because you put an edit summary that said "this warning needs to be kept". Obviously, warnings do not need to be kept. And there is nothing in WP:BLANKING that says the IP template must be displayed at the top of the page, which is one of the issues at hand. So please, will you allow the admins to discuss this with me? You're really not helping matters. Thank you. And btw, when you bold quoted material that isn't bolded in the source, you need to indicate that you did that by putting "(emphasis added)" at the end. The IP templates line is not bolded in the source material. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      And despite the assertions made above, I too fully understand what our IP editor can and cannot delete. The above policy is quite clear, in my view. I B Wright (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      IB, please back away from this discussion and let the admins handle it. You flooded my talk page with edits and reverts - around 10 I believe - and easily surpassed the edit-warring limit. But edit-warring on someone else's talk page doesn't necessarily require even four reverts to violate the policy. And the part you're apparently not aware of is that reverting edits on one's own talk page (or user page) is exempt from 3RR (as long as it violates the TP guidlines). See WP:NOT3RR. So when you ignored my repeated requests to stay off my talk page and posted this comment that says, "And you have now exceeded WP:3RR so a block in now guaranteed", you obviously didn't know what you were talking about. Actually, it was you who violated 3RR. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      76, it is self-evident that you violated Wikipedia's civility rules by saying my edits were "incompetent," and by saying "stay the f[***] off my talk page." You also violated the 3-revert rule by reverting so many edits, despite the good faith that you had in them. I stopped not because of your foul language but because of that rule that you seem to be fully oblivious to. At the third revert, I stopped and instead put a template on your page welcoming you to the wiki. By looking here you can see this. Also, I did signify that the bold was added by putting down "(bold added)". The issue was corrected at this edit by changing "bold added" to "emphasis added." Despite that, you dragged me into the debate on this page and I refuse to let you silence me. If you directly accuse me of anything, I will respond.155blue (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Again 155, you simply don't understand the 3RR and NOT3RR guidlelines. Both you and IB Wright were in violation of 3RR for your flood of edits on my talk page. So read the relevant policies and move on. And this is what's being referred to when one alludes to the concept of competence in editing. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, I don't object to the template. I've stated that several times. But there is no rule that says it must be displayed at the top of the page. It's on my page now, just not at the top. So what's the problem? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      But as you well know, there was an extremely lengthy debate at Village Pump several weeks ago about the exclusions. And at that time, the IP template exclusion was not on there. It was added/readded by Toddst1 two weeks later. So no one is debating that it's on the list now; the only issue whether there is a requirement or not for it to be displayed at the top of the page. Simple. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      These threads reinforce my concerns. This drama has a parasitic effect, consuming the time of others without bestowing any benefit to them or to the encyclopedia. Sweet words or no, you have become a time vampire. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      What do you want, Dennis? Should I chop a limb off? I said I'm sorry for being rude to some admins. And I meant it. I honestly don't care if I get banned or not if that will make everyone feel better. But either way, I regret the way I vented at people. So let's just settle the matter of whether the template is required to go at the top or not. Or do you just want me to stop editing altogether? --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=562289861"