Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Request for admin to close a merger discussion

May I ask for an admin to take a look at the Akita Inu Discussion page for the merger proposal between Akita Inu and American Akita and decide if a closure is due. It would be great to be able to get back to work on the article. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was referred here from a help request on my user talk page. If this is the wrong place or wrong way to flag for an admin to look at closing a merger discussion could someone please say so, either here or my talk page? (and preferably tell me the right place to flag for it) Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a cromulent place to request an admin close a discussion. Convenience link: Talk:Akita Inu#Merger proposal: July 2011. –xeno^talk 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to close a guideline proposal

Could an admin please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)

Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features

Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? has received substantial input and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin close and summarize the consensus in the debate so that editors will know how XfDs created by banned or blocked editors should be treated? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC on the primary topic of China

This shouldn't be a particularly difficult close, but as its apparently been contentious for about 10 years it should be closed by an impartial admin. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fairly contentious... if no-one else cares to tackle it (please! <G>), I guess I could - just need to mull it over a lil' longer. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrator insight requested — Article for Deletion

I'm really uncertain if I'm in the right place to be asking this, but I didn't think asking in random Admin talk pages was the best idea. I listed an article for deletion. Shortly after doing so, I realized that, because the article was deleted once before, it's very possible to have simply listed it for Speedy deletion under G4.

My dilemma is this: The AfD discussion is already underway. Is it possible to bypass the AfD and simply list the article for Speedy deletion instead? If so, what happens to the current AfD? If it gets closed, and the article fails to pass under G4, will I have to list for AfD again as a "3rd nomination"? Or will the AfD discussion be deleted and any future AfD listings will be the "2nd nomination" as it is now?

I'm a bit confused about this and probably thinking too hard about it, but would like to have the article issue resolved ASAP. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A speedy deletion tag can be placed on an article with an active afd. If the speedy is acheived, the AfD will be closed early. If the speedy deletion is declined, the AfD can proceed with no effect at all from the speedy sideline. In other words, it's no problem. LadyofShalott 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to say what the article is, I can take a look and see if a G4 deletion looks appropriate. LadyofShalott 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Corre (professional wrestling)--intelati^talk 02:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a G4 candidate. It's not the same article that was previously deleted. Another admin may want to take a look and weigh in though. LadyofShalott 02:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something, but the current version does seem to closely resemble (IMO) the version that was AfD'ed. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thing is the one that was AfD'd was before they'd even aired, and this version talks of the demise of the group. It's that part that keeps it distinct enough to me not to G4. LadyofShalott 03:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case, letting the new AfD run its course makes sense. 28bytes (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

80.65.103.18

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody block 80.65.103.18 (talk · contribs). Reported half-an hour ago at WP:AIV Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

the transfer and merger history

transfer and merger history of Abpakhsh to Ab Pakhsh please. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A block that isn't a block

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

---

I blocked User:Debresser for 48h at 18:39UTC last night for edit warring - his previous block had been 31h. As the user who reported him to AN3 has pointed out on my page, due to his religious beliefs Debresser does not edit on a Saturday. Given his time zone, that means the 48h block is effectively a 24h block. Would it be rational to extend the block to account for that? I have to admit I can see both sides of the argument. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be over-thinking things too much; down that road, madness lies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was my first thought as well. Obviously I over-thought it :) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to think about your statement too much; recursive over-thinking might make my head explode. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that block lengths should not be formulated or adjusted on this basis. (I suppose I can imagine an extraordinary circumstance where an editor was repeatedly misbehaving just before going offline, but in that event the block lengths would wind up escalating anyways.) We are definitely better off not going down this road. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with NYB. If someone uses the fact that they do not edit on (a) certain day(s) to game the system by violating the rules just before such a break, they will be sanctioned with long enough blocks soon anyway. Otherwise we'd treat editors different based on their religion, beliefs, ethics etc. instead of their actions and that is, as pointed out above, a path we should not go. And Debresser is an experienced editor, despite such problematic behavior, so they know that any try to use this to their advantage will fail anyway. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That was pretty much my thinking as well, but I thought it was an interesting enough point to bring to wider notice. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That it certainly was. When applying rules to people, there is often the question whether applying the same rule to different people is fair and honestly, I never thought about such a situation before, so bringing it here was certainly the best idea =) Regards SoWhy 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• The purpose of a block is to prevent immediate damage to Wikipedia. If this person is going to voluntarily stop editing for a day (for whatevr reason) then they will not be damaging Wikipedia, and therefore that is an argument for making no block at all, rather than extending it. Because the only reason to extend it would be that they 'deserve' to be actually prevented from editing for 48 hours: but blocks are not supposed to be punitive. In short, don't extend the block; if they stay away from the computer rather than pining away at being unable to edit Wikipedia, then good on them. ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocks should not be set for length on the basis of religion or any other grounds. If a person died, then the block should extend to one day past the Resurrection? Collect (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I should think one day before the resurrection would make more sense... Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• If a person has a habit of (say) making a string of bad edits on a Friday night, then disappearing until the following Thursday, then it would make sense to block them for a week, to ensure (a) you got their attention and (b) you avoided another hard Friday night for RC patrollers. In this case, I would have said it would only be an issue if you were blocking the guy at sunset on Friday, when the Sabbath started, because to meet the two criteria above you would have to block for 48hrs. As it is, you've presumably got his attention because he couldn't edit last night, and the fact that he doesn't edit on the Sabbath isn't really an issue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Banned user Mikemikev

Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) socked at ANI, claiming that his ban was imposed as a result of incorrect evidence. I've blocked the IP sock for a week. I've also left instructions at Mikemikev's talk page for how to go about an appeal through the correct channels. If Mikemikev wants to appeal the ban, then it would appear to be Arbcom territory. I'm taking no sides on the merits of this appeal, or the imposition of the ban. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Through his drawfuls of sock accounts (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mikemikev, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mikemikev), Mikemikev has made antisemitic postings on wikipedia that have had to be oversighted; he has created attack-only accounts like Comicania where images on Commons had to be immediately removed (by Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette); he reposted those images on ED.ch, where he was subsequently blocked and the attack page deleted; and he created an antisemitic attack page on Stormfront (website) requesting participants there to edit race-related articles on wikipedia. In view of his racist remarks off-wiki under the same username (here is a sample of comments on video channels [1]), there seems to be no prospect of a return to editing on wikipedia ever. In the past there have been one or two editors that have spoken up on his behalf and it is possible that might happen here. Mathsci (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

When someone resorts to wikilawyering one specific aspect of the ban resulting discussion in an attempt to overturn the sanction, and ignoring the other evidence presented, it is apparent that their intent is to return to WP to continue their campaign. That they resort to socking to present their appeal in the hope of recruiting a good faith supporter or two, it indicates that they have either exhausted the "proper" channels or are simply aware of the futility of doing so. The fact is that there is consensus for the ban, based upon the totality of the evidence available, provides that finding a few "cheerleaders" will not effect the result. In short, Mikemikev is banned and will stay so - more especially if they violate policy in an effort to have their complaints aired. Don't sweat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

My intention is not to be "unbanned". I understand that people believe that I personally, off wikipedia, am "racist", and that regardless of the quality and sourcing of my editing I must be banned. I have demonstrated to you how easily I can edit right under your noses should I choose. My intention is to show everybody that Mathsci and his cronies are liars, which they are. I intend to do that. It would be proper to revisit the community ban. Of course I am very sure nothing will be done. 94.116.104.219 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)