Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Courcelles (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 27 September 2010 (→‎Community ban for User:Shutterbug: Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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


    AfD's generally closed too soon

    This is a general complain, not aimed at one editor, so I post it here. Many editors, especially many admins, close AfD discussions early (hours or even days early) without a good reason (real "Snow" or "Speedy" closures). I am not claiming that the outcome would have been any different if we had let the discussions run a bit longer, but the current standard of letting AfD's open for at least seven days was achieved after some fairly lengthy discussions. I noticed the problem with it when someone added a day too early to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and Mathbot automatically indicated that only 16 of the 78 discussions were still open, half a day before the full seven days would expire.[1]

    Looking at the actual log for 8 September only, I see that the first one was closed some 16 hours early, the second, the third and the fourth nearly two days early (as were the sixth and the seventh and many others by the same closer), and also by other people this one and this one and this or this. Oh, and this or this. And this one, after 4 1/2 days. The vast majority of the 62 discussions already closed, where closed hours to days too soon.

    I'll notify the three editorsd with the most early closures of this thread, but could everyone who closes AfD discussions please respect the minimum time of seven full days? Fram (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that any disputed AfD should run the full 7 days, but I'm not seeing how a closure "16 hours early" causes a problem. If some editor intends a thorough dissection or a heroic re-write, it seems inadvisable to wait until the last few hours. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I check things listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, so yeah, had not realized there was a problem with things being listed too early at that page. Someone should go ahead and fix that page for future reference. :) -- Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, that doesn't seem to be the problem, since you lowed many pages from the log for the 8th, which isn't listed there yet. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, some of those may have been relisted already, and thus were at AFD for longer than seven days. -- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I only close from User:Excirial/Dashboard. I didn't realize that the listings included those earlier than they should be closed, although the nature of the list should have told me. (In fact on the top of the /old page it says "This page contains Articles for deletion discussions that have finished their discussion period and are eligible to be closed following the deletion process") I'll watch the times as well as dates now. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Boldly changed the text at the top of the page to reflect what it really is [2] NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revised this change to reflect the actual policy: that fthe page lists discussions within 24 hrs of closing, but only those that have been open 168 hours may be closed. It would be even better if we could rewrite it so it actually did list the ones that can be closed, the way WP:PROD indicates the expired prods. DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, why are you all balming this incorrectly on the Afd/old page? This lists only pages where every single one has passed the seven day (168 hour) limit. It doesn't list discussions 23 hours early, it lists a day only when the most recent discussion is at least 168 hours old. I have reverted the incorrect changes to the text of the AfD/Old page. Please check such things before making such statements. Fram (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I regret to have to admit that some of the examples above are my closings. I should not have closed them when I did. The reason I did so is the pernicious effect of instruction creep, and the effect of seeing what everyone else does--in practice I seem to have been looking at areas on the page where most of the articles are already closed, and following their examples by closing others nearby. I've previous been trying to fight this, and protested rather vigorously to the individuals, but in view of the insistence of one or two of the regular closer who have refused to change their ways, I seem to have unconsciously decided to join them--some of this may have been the understandable but not really good motive of trying to get my share rather than be foreclosed in this area by those who refused to follow the rules designed to allow cooperation.
    But I see nothing on the above list that needs to be reopened to prevent error, either mine or the others, but anyone is I think free to do so.
    I suggest we enforce this strictly, unless a SNOW close is appropriate in special cases and can be justified. The justification of a SNOW is like IAR--no good faith editor who wants to object. There might be one other special case: a BLP where the continued discussion is harmful.
    I want to reiterate the reason for the rule: 7 days can shrink to 6 very easily--someone above seems to have said 16 hours is not too soon, but that's 2/3 of a full day. If someone argues why does it matter with a unanimous AfD, it will soon be why does it matter after two or three people have spoken, no matter how soon it is. We cannot tell it is unanimous until the end. And in order to get a reasonable spectrum of views, we need to accommodate those who do not contribute every day the way many of those in the discussion do. I have seen many AfDs changed or reversed by contributions made in the final hours.
    I think we should clarify the relistings to indicate that a relisting must be for another 7 days. There are too many examples where one is closed after a single additional person has spoken. If we need to send out a message we need more time, it is simplest and fairest being for the same amount of time. If we already need to wait more than 7 days, no harm is done by another 7. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think you need to be ashamed of following the crowd and closing some AfDs early. At all. But what you describes certainly confirms what I have said before: If there is a rule not to close an AfDs early, but it is not followed, then it creates bias of a kind that I would prefer not to see: Admins who decide it's not all that important for themselves to follow the rules strictly have more influence on AfDs than those admins who insist on painstakingly sticking to the rules. Hans Adler 15:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I agree with the sentiment, but not your take on relistings. Relistings do not need to be for seven days, and in many cases should not be. If one additional !vote validates the outcome, then a close is appropriate. If discussion is ongoing and progress is being made, then yes, discussion should continue. A hard and fast rule on relistings is unneeded, in my experience. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Same here. If someone really cared that much about an article, they should have commented in the first week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, the {{Proposed deletion}} template includes a hard-coded timestamp; when the proper amount of time has elapsed, the template itself changes the visible text to highlight that "This article may be deleted without further notice". We've used similar functions for templates associated with the Arbcom elections (changing pages to open voting at the correct moment, for example). Could the AFD template be amended to show how long the page has been in existence? If the AFD is created with the nomination, then a template could add a "Don't close me early" flag until the current time is precisely 7 days after the first timestamp. Even better, the {{afd2}} template is substituted, to format the debate. We add a timestamp to that, so that the nomination is timestamped. Then, the {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} template, normally invisible, could display a notation under the title if the elapsed time is less than 7 days - or a different "This debate has been open 7 days, and may be closed shortly" notation once the elapsed time has gone past 7 days. Either way, we could retain the highly useful WP:AFD/OLD listings while avoiding early closures. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the concerns voiced by many and have also noticed this problem. If most admins follow the seven-day rule, but a few don't, then those few admins will close the majority of AfDs. This is not desirable. As a partial solution, I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Encouraging compliance with the "seven full days" policy to add the following to deletion policy: "Administrators may without discussion undo any closure of a deletion discussion that occurs before seven days have elapsed." Comments are welcome on the policy talk page. Additionally I support any templated timestamp solution as per Ultraexactzz's proposal.  Sandstein  20:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I thought I was waiting a week, but I wasn't. That needs to be cleared up, but the above proposal makes sense. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good solution, but it would be even better if admins had a place where they can find all AfDs that need closing, and only such AfDs. Then the problem would disappear automatically and we would prevent tensions from building up between admins. Hans Adler 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be possible to make a template on an open AFD add the AFD to a category exactly seven days after the AFD has been started. Ucucha 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the idea of using a category rather than a list. It seems appropriate for the purpose. Hans Adler 08:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the AFD2 template adds a timestamp, then REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD could add the category if CURRENTTIME=TIMESTAMP+7 days. We've already got the REMOVE template in place (it adds debates to CAT:AFD), so no need to add another invisible template that would need to be removed on closure. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Part 2

    At first glance, this report has had the effect that the editors most responsible for these early closings have stooped this (thanks!), only to be replaced by others. These were closed after this discussion started, so... 14 hours early, 16 hours early, 13 hours early, 12 hours early (and many more by the same editor, who I'll notify), 5 hours early, 14 hours early, 14 hours early, 8 hours early, 8 hours early, and some more by this editor as well. Basically, this AN discussion has replaced the three editors most active in closing discussions early, with three other editors doing the same... Fram (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I'll be more careful and wait the full 7 days. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (addition) Let's admit here: closing AfDs is fun. It's either like whack-a-mole when you have 10 delete !votes in a row, or more like sitting in the judge's seat with a controversial AfD; both are pretty amusing. A typical AfD cycle for a day's log goes: 25% are speedy closed, SNOW closed, withdrawn, or closed after 8-12 days (for relists) well before the 6 days. Next to go are the whack-a-moles, which comprise another 25%, in the first two hours. Slowly throughout the day some trickier AfDs get closed (again 25%). (This is where, admittedly, I do most of my work, after the moles have already been whacked by someone else.) 15% get relisted. Finally, the 10% is the nasty part that actually makes it into the -8 log: it's either annoying long or it has around five disparate !votes (the gray area where it's too many to relist and too few to call a consensus). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to wade through the coding this afternoon, and (hopefully) have a template add-on that will timestamp the debate when it is opened, list it as "Scheduled to close at (TIMESTAMP+7 days)", then - once that time passes - list it as "This debate is eligible for closure". Once the debate is either A) no longer included in CAT:AFD or B) included in Category:Relisted Deletion Debates, it will remove the timestamp. Consensus, above, is certainly strong enough for a trial. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm definitely a guilty party on this one, closing some that were at 6 days and X hours, rather than 7 days. As a general rule, I guess, we all need to know where we stand on UTC-- in my case, I'm 5 hours behind, so at 7:00 this evening my time, it's Saturday on Wikipedia. If I was in California, 4:01 pm local would be 0001 hours UTC. I pledge to be more careful about this. Mandsford 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Add me to the guilty list and considering that there are now several threads about this it's surprising that this wasn't bought up at my recent RFA. In my case it was because I was closing from the 7 day log. That's the log I do relists from and while there it only made sense to also close any clear unambiguous keeps. Later as I gained more experience I became more mindful of the time it was posted and not just what log it's on. However, I still think that administrators should be able to use their best judgment in such cases. If a debate is close and/or still receiving comments then it should be left to tick out the full 168 but does it make sense to leave "borderline snow" AFDs where everything that is going to be said has been said and nobody has posted anything in 3 days open just for the sake of process? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus for timestamp on AFD2 template

    I've gone ahead and coded a timestamp function for the {{afd2}} template - the code can be found at User:Ultraexactzz/Afdtimestamptest, and a sandbox example at User:Ultraexactzz/afd test. The afd2 template is the template that actually formats the deletion debate. The code will take the timestamp (+7 days) at the time the debate is formatted - this becomes the time of the nomination, and the +7 days sets the time after which the debate may be closed. It then compares the current time to that timestamp. If the current time is prior to that of the timestamp, a small notice gives the scheduled closure time (in the form "This debate is scheduled to end at 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC).") If the current time is after that timestamp, the notice becomes a standard-font bold "This debate has been open for 7 days, and may now be closed by an administrator.". I have not added categories, though this could be included as appropriate (and if there's consensus to create a Category for debates ready to be closed). I also am unsure how to remove the notice if Category:Relisted AfD debates is present; it might be that removing this parserfunction becomes a step in relisting, for now. The notice at WT:AFD points discussion to this page; should we make a request there as well, or just note that I'm calling the question? Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Minus the by an administrator part :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the idea, but as for the implementation, I think {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} is a better place for it so that the "can be closed" note will be automatically removed after the debate is closed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, generally. Maybe we do both; we use the AFD2 template to enter a parameter (the current timestamp +7 days) into the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template, and then have REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE call that parameter when deciding whether to show "Debate scheduled to close at" or "This debate may now be closed". This has the virtue of not requiring the REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE template to be substituted, since debates are shifted in category all the time - we get a lot of bad inputs or custom categories, which put the debates into "Not yet sorted", and then someone changes the template to reflect the correct category. For example. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The relisting script will have to update the template and either change the timestamp or a relist parameter or both. There is no parserfunction, AFAIK, that tells if a page is in a category. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that relisted debates are as much of a problem. To the best of my understanding, a relist means that at the time of relisting, there was no clear concensus; if there is a clear concensus 3 days later, I see no reason not to close it - it had its full 168 hours, and the result is clear. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cases of unanimous consensus

    I am going to give an example, below, and pose a question:

    1. Something was nominated to AFD.
    2. It has no objections to deletion.
    3. No one has done anything to demonstrate notability.
    4. The AFD has unanimous comments from individuals, all who have commented, with, Delete.
    5. Duration of the AFD since time of nomination is 6 days, 23 hours.

    In such a case, is the discussion above, stating that admins are forbidden from ever closing such AFDs early, even under obvious WP:SNOW provisions, in unanimous cases? -- Cirt (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would argue that an administrator should be able to use his best judgment in such cases. Both of us work off the 7 day "relistable" log and it does make some sense to go ahead and close the slam-dunk keeps and deletes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, agreed. -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But here's the problem: 6 days 23 hours ... 6 days 22 hours .... 6 days 12 hours .... 6 days 1 hours.... 6 days 5 minutes.... This is one of the times when a clean cutoff rule is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How about the case of: 10 unanimous comments in favor of Delete, no objections to delete, no one commenting keep, no sources in the article, the article is a completely unreferenced BLP page, and it has been 6 days and 1 hours? -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins are forbidden from closing even such AFDs early by current policy ("at least seven days"). Slippery slope problems aside, that's because somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours. The only possible exceptions to the seven-day-rule are, AFAIK, WP:CSD or WP:IAR (that is, situations where following the seven-day rule would be positively harmful to Wikipedia or members of the public). This would include unsourced, potentially libelous BLPs, but not much else.  Sandstein  12:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point. Perhaps my view on this is clouded by the fact that until recently, I could only close "keep" and only for slam-dunk (or nearly so) cases. Deletion is more permanent and harder to undo and it's more likely that someone may show up at the last minute with a source then then it is for an 11th hour damning rebuttal on a borderline snow keep. However, there are some clear cut cases in the delete department such as this one. (borderline G3) That probably could have been closed at day 4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't think that closing AfD's a bit early is harmful. As Sandstein said, "somebody could still provide a source during the remaining 23 hours" - yet what if an editor provides sources after 7 days and 1 hour, once the article is deleted? Then the difference is the same. A well-reasoned keep !vote should have the same bearing on an article's inclusion no matter if the discussion is active or has been closed for 3 months. As long as closing administrators recognize this, deletion becomes much less permanent. I certainly don't think AfD's should be closed before 6 days (in order to allow discussion during every day of the week), but a flexible closing period after that time seems fine. A 168 (24×7) hour listing period is fairly arbitrary anyways - how long do they list AfD's on venus.wikipedia? :) Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have what you describe: a hard line minimum duration and a flexible closing period afterwards. The only difference ist that the hard line is currently set at seven days, as agreed per community discussion, and not at six days as you propose. The point of this thread is to get people to comply with the hard line minimum (which is of course arbitrary, but it has to be set somewhere).  Sandstein  06:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So I think the point of confusion (for me at least) is that, without careful examination of the current hardline duration, one might assume that AfD's can be closed on the seventh day, when in theory, they should be closed no earlier than the eighth. It's similar to how the 17th century spans from 1601-1700. Thus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In closing, for example, should be pointing to the discussions of one day earlier. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and I've made that change. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having an article that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria stay on Wikipedia for 23 additional hours is not much of a problem either. The advantage of having a non-arbitrary dead line is that it reduces uncertainty, confusion, and unnecessary discussions. (Some of the arguments in this discussion seem to assume that editors are checking their watchlists 24/7, yet many editors are active only once in a week or even less often.)  Cs32en Talk to me  00:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As well as curtailing the time open for debate (we chose seven days specifically because access to Wikipedia is often on a weekly cycle, especially when weekends are taken into account), the rush to deletion also means that certain admins end up closing all the debates. That's partly why I gave up closing AfDs: other admins were 'cheating' by closing them early, and ignored my requests not to. Seven days should be a bright line (excepting CSD and blatant IAR issues), and those who breach it should be sanctioned. Fences&Windows 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, would you also consider WP:SNOW a blatant IAR case? For example, 4-5 days, 9 keeps with a strong basis in policy, maybe one other delete either not based on policy or with a good counter argument? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IAR should only be invoked when following the rule would be harmful to Wikipedia. In the case you describe, no harm would be done by waiting until the full seven days have elapsed to close the AfD, and so it should not be closed early.  Sandstein  14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR doesn't actually say it needs to "prevent harm", it simply says ignore rules which prevent you improving or maintaining wikipedia. And keeping an AfD open when there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of it passing is a waste of the community's time; why not close it? The existence of WP:SNOW and the fact that many, many AfDs are closed as WP:SNOW seems to indicate that there is at least partial consensus that it is an appropriate interpretation of WP:IAR, and I don't think this is the correct venue to build consensus on whether or not WP:SNOW is an acceptable reason for closing AfDs early. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We can disagree with respect to SNOW/IAR cases, but there are many AfDs being closed early that do not fall into either category. These are the main problem here, I think.  Sandstein  15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree there; admins do have a certain degree of flexibility with WP:SNOW due to WP:IAR (there's always discussion with the admin / DRV if others disagree with an AfD, and further discussion is likely to be needed if WP:SNOW closes are to be challenged in general), but the discretion of the closing admin isn't infinite; withdrawn nominations with no support and WP:IAR should really be the only reasons to close early; as discussed above, the 7 day period is set at that for good reasons. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for WP:RFRD?

    We're getting more and more requests for rev del at ANI. Do we think there's enough frequency here to split off those requests into a "Requests for revision deletion" board? I don't watchlist ANI, but I could watchlist something more modest like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Certain requests for revision deletion (outing, personal information, so forth) ought not be posted at ANI at all, nor any central noticeboard. –xenotalk 18:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. But the fact remains that we have at least half a dozen on ANI right now. I would expect that you'd put this list on {{admin dashboard}} for quick action, much like our take on {{db-attack}}, such that we'd reduce the risk vs. just accepting them on ANI by quickly handling them. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if we could "appropriate" something, like the unblock-l mailing list that has lots of admin eyes on it, yet is still private, to direct such requests to? Because posting on ANI is defeating the whole point of RevDel, as would a separate noticeboard. A separate mailing list might be a better idea, actually. Courcelles 18:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if something really merits oversight, we're pretty clear on that one, but there are plenty of gross insults meriting RD2 but not oversight. This would be targeted for those, again, like G10s. Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Irony. I was literaly just coming here to pose the same question. WP:BURO and WP:BEANS aside, surely it's better to have REVDEL requests somewhere better than the highly visible (and some may say toxic) atmosphere of ANI. I'm not sure what my opinion is on wether it's better to have a board or a mailing list (gut instinct is that I don't like mailing lists) but it's clear we need something per Jclemens. Pedro :  Chat  19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I vote for a board. Instructions should make clear that you should not identify anything in the objectionable content when posting diffs. These requests can be handled very quickly. --Selket Talk 20:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess I missed the boat on this. Are the rev-delete criteria that broad that items which merit rev deletion show up dozens of time a day? How many things are we rev deleting which would be better left in the history and reverted? Protonk (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The main things appear to be BLP violations in edit summaries (which can't just be reverted) and extremely offensive BLP violations in the text of an article. Personal information happens but is rarer. -Selket Talk 21:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Well, based on my reading of ANI today, it certainly seems like it. Feel free to peruse it and make up your own mind on whether the number of requests is based on merit (they should have indeed been made and done) or overuse (better simply reverted, as you say). Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just thinking about this today, considering how many revdel requests are on the ANI board right now. Since I've found myself doing so many of them lately anyway, I'd be happy to sign up for a mailing list or watchlist a noticeboard, whichever way people want to go. I just don't think that ANI is the best place in the long term for these requests. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps we should make this more clear on the WP:REVDEL policy page, just as it is on the requests for oversight page? I do have to agree with Xeno, that we should be discouraging people to post Revision deletion requests on ANI or any noticeboard as that only creates a "Streisand effect", which we don't want. –MuZemike 21:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    At the same time, though, we can be sure that any request getting posted at ANI will get rapidly dealt with; earlier today, I dealt with one report within three minutes of it getting posted. Unless it's oversightable stuff (which should always be emailed anyway), I think overall it's better for these reports to get a minute or two of high-profile attention than to send it off to what is certain to be an under-staffed and under-utilized mailing list, where requests may end up getting left around for hours or missed entirely (which does happen, even on the OTRS lists at times). Hersfold (t/a/c) 21:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The ability to stick a {{resolved}} on an entry is one reason I prefer a noticeboard to a mailing list. Jclemens (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes not, though; we had an outing issue on ANI yesterday which ended up with at least three admins having to revdelete about fifty revisions on half a dozen articles. By the time that had been cleared up, any editor who was interested would have known who the editor concerned was in real life. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that situation is the exception, not the rule. That was a situation where personal information was sitting on a talk page for 2 years without being reverted. I doubt that happens a lot (or am I being naive?). -- Atama頭 22:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Outing issues shouldn't go to ANI anyway; those DO belong at the oversight list for that reason. Normal revdelete stuff - grossly offensive attacks, copyright vios, etc., can be handled in due time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anything that needs RevDel also needs public postings. Noticeboards are fast, but visible. Mailing lists are private, but slower. I don't think there's a good solution either way. I would prefer a mailing list over a noticeboard, but both have their drawbacks. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider, though, that a RevDel mailing list OR noticeboard can explicitly exclude anything that meets the criteria for oversighting. RevDel on the way to oversighting is not something appropriate for such a noticeboard; RevDel for inappropriate content that does not rise to that level is. Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true, but people will inevitably ignore things like that and post OSable stuff publicly because either they don't understand the gravity of the situation or they don't bother reading important notices. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Although a standalone specialised board could really, really whack people in the face with the need not to do that. Also such a board would provide a convenient single place to go for removing info from public view, since in explaining the difference between RevDel and Oversight it would point people to the latter's email address. This would also been opportunity to clarify under what circumstances Oversight is now preferred to RevDel, which I don't think is clear enough. eg at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight some of the points seem like RevDel. Finally, it would help keep experience with handling these requests in one place, which may be helpful for consistency. Rd232 talk 15:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm afraid is going to happen is that people are going to start posting stuff that should be oversighted on-wiki to this noticeboard, making it visible in two places instead of just one. –MuZemike 04:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if that really happens, even after taking advantage of the specialisation to make the issue much more prominent and clearer than it is now at AN/ANI, then we can delete the board and try something else. Rd232 talk 08:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you'll find that those who wish to harass users via outing will game the system to make the personal information known in as many places as possible. Unless there is a bright line against posting personal information, like if in doubt do not do it, if unsure, do not do it, etc, it will continue to happen for a variety of reasons. Until the consequences of doing so are clearly not worth the thrill of harassment, it will continue. Bullies will always justify their tactics until it is clearly and uniformly forbidden. 71.139.5.184 (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a thought, but as we already have {{Copyvio-histpurge}}/Category:Requested history purges and {{Non-free reduced}}/Category:Rescaled fairuse images, both of which involve revision deletions (AFAIK anyway), why not implement something similar along these lines? In any case, as I commented at the TfD for {{Copyvio-histpurge}}, I don't think it would be appropriate to delete that template without having something to replace it. PC78 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Straw Poll

    Seems that the discussion has died down a bit, and people have staked out a few definite positions, which I'm going to try to summarize here:

    Position 1: Nothing new is needed

    The status quo position. Editors can be encouraged to use the oversight mailing list and/or discouraged from posting anything to ANI. The risk of centralizing RevDel requests anywhere per either of the following outweighs the benefits in doing so.

    Support
    1. 2nd choice to establishing an "WikiEN-admins" mailing list, see discussion below. –MuZemike 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. First choice per my comments above. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Sorry, but I just don't see any good way to deal with this. ANI has its speed benefits, and hopefully no one is stupid enough to post private info there. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. No matter how fast ANI or a new board can take care of the problem, material that is subject to revdel should not be posted anywhere in the same way that oversight requests should not be onwiki. I have no objects to a new mailing list, but don't think it's necessary. -Atmoz (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion

    Position 2: Add a new noticeboard

    A new noticeboard provides a centralized place, much like the monitoring of {{db-attack}} where RevDel'able material can be widely watchlisted and quickly handled by interested admins. We can NOINDEX it, point people to oversight mailing list for serious issues, and not archive it to keep the Streisand effect to a minimum to mitigate the known risks.

    Support
    1. As proposer. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Sounds good. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 06:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Makes sense to me. Disagree it will necessarily have slower responses than ANI. Yes, ANI has more watchers, but the relevant watching will be from active admins, which is a pretty small group - and with proper announcements, that shouldn't be an issue. If anything, it might lead to quicker responses, because ANI has so much else going on that (a) requests won't appear on watchlists the same way they will on a specialised board and (b) quite a few admins basically ignore ANI as taking too much time and trouble, and at least some of these may watch the new board. Rd232 talk 19:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Can't hurt to give it a try. I agree with Rd232's points as well. Airplaneman ✈ 23:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Good idea, we already have the category for attack pages. Make it like AIV, dealt-with reports should automatically be removed. Maybe make disposable date-based subpages that are deleted a soon as everything for that day is done? — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    6. The lesser of all evils. I think it would likely be well maintained to be honest - AIV is rarely backlogged for example and I'd view it as a similar board. Pedro :  Chat  13:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    7. I think it would help get these requests off ANI and would bring faster response than an email list. -- Atama頭 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Seems like a sensible proposal, as worded, above. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    9. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    10. Give it a try. I like the bot idea. MER-C 02:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion
    • What if we have a bot that automatically revdels revisions submitted to the board (with limits on number of revisions per user in a time period and perhaps require submitter to be autoconfirmed, etc. to prevent abuse) pending admin review? This way any revisions submitted would be revdel'd immediately and invisible to most people, but we still retain the benefits of a public noticeboard. T. Canens (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What, so we'd then go back and check for abuses, reverse them, and block editors for requests made in bad faith? Hmm... that's a radically different proposal. Not sure I've thought through all the implications yet. Jclemens (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case an obvious, um, advantage of this noticeboard idea is that it permits automation. E.g. very much in the spirit of a completely open Wikipedia something similar to Deletionpedia could be set up. A bot could save all problematic edits on a server outside the Wikimedia Foundation's hands before an admin gets around to dealing with them. This would take inclusionism to a new level and would certainly be useful for all kinds of research about Wikipedia. Hans Adler 19:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note
    I have added this straw poll to {{Centralized discussion}}. Access Denied [FATAL ERROR] 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Position 3: Add a new mailing list

    A mailing list loses the {{resolved}} capability of a noticeboard, but it's relatively simple to restrict membership to admins such that we're not putting requests for rev deletion directly onto Wikipedia... as long as people follow the instructions.

    Support
    Discussion
    • If we were to go forward with a "WikiEN-admins" mailing list, it would definitely need to be non-public for obvious reasons; non-admins can post to the list, but they will not be able to subscribe to it or view any other emails in it (similar to "unblock-en-l" regarding unblock requests). Something like this would also open the door for other forms of (at times sensitive) discourse exclusively amongst en.wiki admins. I'm leaning towards supporting if at the least to see if this is a viable route to go, but perhaps more discussion is necessary if we wish to go in this direction. –MuZemike 15:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ewww. I get enough emails already from the lists I'm already on. Also has severe risk for these requests to fall through the cracks and never get noticed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't people just send stuff into WP:RFO's mailing list like they do now? That's what I do. Gets the job done. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise. Also, if there are two mailing lists, some mail will go to one place that should have been sent to the other, and then it will be forwarded to the right place - increasing the net exposure of information that's being removed because it shouldn't be exposed. Better to just make the current Oversight infrastructure a front end for all of this stuff. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot platform

    As some know I am developing a bot platform and I like to see if the project received wide support before continuing. d'oh! talk 12:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Huge backlog of images tagged for speedy deletion

    Hi.

    There is a huge backlog of files that need to speedy-deleted building up and requires administrators' attention. These files are listed in Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons.

    Fleet Command (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no urgency in processing these files since it makes no real difference whether the files are deleted or not. It does give us a chance to review the files in question, so it shouldn't be rushed. There are a significant number which will want deleting from here and from Commons.
    The only Commons-related backlog which may matter - and which we don't have any really solid processes to handle - are the name clashes: the cases where an image here has the same name as a different image on Commons. Some of these are in Category:Images with a different image under the same name on Wikimedia Commons, but only a very few since this category is populated by manual tagging.
    Supposedly there is a toolserver query that will generate a listing of all images - here - but I certainly couldn't get that to work and in any case rerunning the query every time you want to look is a bad idea. We should probably have a periodic report generated onto a page here in enwp. Likely someone with half a clue could do that easily enough. Fabulous virtual prizes await! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This backlog has been around for forever. It's not urgent, but admins should try to clear out one subcategory when they have spare time. It takes about 10 minutes or less for me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on cutting down the undated category; I don't know if I'm making any progress, but it can't hurt. Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm... "It takes 10 minutes" and "I don't know if I'm making any progress" leave me confused. I wish I could help... Alas. Fleet Command (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it takes ten minutes to clear out a subcategory. It also takes ten minutes for a new subcategory to be populated :/ /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

    Let me just mention that without Sandstein handling things, this rather important area appears to be somewhat understaffed at the moment. Looie496 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not surprised one bit. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    no admin comment in a three hour old complaint at ANI

    Resolved
     – Resolved on AN/I --Salix (talk): 09:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, there has been no comment at all from any Administrators in this thread that originates in a racist accusation and then multiple quacking reverting created accounts and IP reverts, please comment as to reasons for any reasons or issues with failure to reply to the Administrative request., thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Very rare for the Incidents board. You can go days and weeks without seeing an admin on the other admins noticeboard, but that one is usually quick. Although i must say the last issue i raised there got lots of comments from editors but im not sure if an admin responded and there was certainly no ruling. And that went on for several days until it got auto archived without any resolution. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User pages listed at C:SD

    The following pages show up on C:SD as of 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC) for me, but they aren't listed for speedy deletion. A quick search through transcluded templates reveals none that are tagged for speedy deletion. Plus, they're listed under "μ". I'm confused.

    If it helps, I tried this on Safari, Firefox, and Chrome, and all produced the same result. I am on a Macintosh running Snow Leopard. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 02:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and they're listed at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason as well. Airplaneman ✈ 02:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, they've been delisted. Airplaneman ✈ 03:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pages in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason appear under μ in C:SD. These pages all transclude User:GeneralIroh/Userboxes/Secret, which was tagged using {{db}} here. It was noinclude'd later, but the category does not update immediately due to the job queue, I think. Next time, a dummy edit would force an update and fix the problem, but it looks like the problem has fixed itself without that here. T. Canens (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's this? (strange site-redirect)

    Resolved
     – Typing error by OP, no action required. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What's this: http://survey.prizesgiveaway.com/w/index.php?f=wikkipedia (Popped up when I manually typed wikipedia.org into my browser) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless you mistyped, wikipedia.org should take you straight to the main site. Your computer may be infected with a virus or malware that's redirecting your browser to other URLs. Run MalwareBytes (malwarebytes.org - Make SURE that's the site you download from) and Antivirus (http://free.avg.com/gb-en/homepage or http://www.free-av.com/ are safe). Exxolon (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems the most likely explanation; I've had to deal with browser hijackers before, they can be really quite annoying. Another common one is for the hijacker to replace search engine hits (google, yahoo, ask, and whatever else), with its own advertisements. By the way, I would recommend trying to download any antivirus or malware applications from a different computer if possible, as it may well attempt to intercept URLs of known antiviruses. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    More likely it's just typosquatting. I just typed wikkipedia.org into a browser window and it took me to the prize givaway site. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops, I didn't notice the "f=wikkipedia" in the url indicating the referrer ;) Yes, it must have been a typo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. Definitely a typographic error, marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 06:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Update on Audit Subcommittee

    The Audit Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Arbitration Committee, tasked to review and act upon concerns and complaints about checkuser and oversight activities received from the community. Membership consists of three community representatives elected by the community, who serve one-year terms; and three arbitrators, who rotate through this assignment for approximately six months.

    In advance of the scheduled election/appointment of community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee, a summary of activity has been posted on the subcommittee's report page.

    The community is invited to discuss this report, as well as preferred methods and terms for the selection of community representatives to participate in the audit process. The result of the discussion will inform the Arbitration Committee on how best to proceed before progressing to another election cycle.

    For the Arbitration Committee,
    Risker (talk) Cross-posted by NW (Talk) 20:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this

    User talk:M12390

    The user User talk:M12390 has been repeatedly warned on his pages on issues concerning MQM, Altaf Hussein, and Imran Farooq. It seems he has an agenda he's POV-pushing. On the page I fould him on for a recently deceased person (Imran Farooq), 2 editors (one of which was me) have inserted content that is sourced (after a discussion with another fellow who considered it uncited, but we duly found sources) and he removes it saying it is "irrelevant." In addition to his bias he has gone and first WP:NPAed the other editor User talk:Saqib Qayyum#Why are you hell bent in highlighting the "Muhajir" background of Imran Farooq? and then at my own page User talk:Lihaas#A Lahori CANNOT be neutral about Karachi (which came AFTER i warned him about personal attacks).

    I believe this is the right place to post the message, the help desk didnt answer my query on September 19.(Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC));[reply]
    I think ANI might have been more appropriate. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Any unbiased researcher would soon learn that Lahoris in particular and many opinion-makers of cities on the GT Road (Peshawar -> Islamabad -> Lahore) for some reason cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Check this out. According to the Daily Mirror [1] "Within minutes of the death of Dr Farooq - a leading member of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement which means United National Movement - websites in Islamabad were awash with claims he had been assassinated or killed by his own bodyguard."
    Where did these people find out about the details of the murder when the Scotland Yard has been scrambling to get clues?
    Also, UK-based Punjabi supporters of ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (based in Lahore) are writing all kinds of conspiracy theories against the MQM similar to this. [2] This website is based in Rawalpindi, another city on the GT Road. M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just users from opposite points of views, I have edited there and there has been ethnic labeling without clear supporting citations, user Lihass wants to categorize Farooq as an immigrant, Farooq was born in Pakistan and where I come from we don't do that, as in a person born in England is English, if his father was born in Pakistan and moved to England then his father was an immigrant...anyways, User:M12390 has got a bit heated about that, as I see it a word in his ear to keep cool and stay civil are all that is needed for the time being. Off2riorob (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Off2riorob for your kind comments. I would definitely try to keep my cool. :) M12390 (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Off2riorob, We had a civil discussion about the content and the cites showing where he was on the talk page.
    As for M12390 his attacks both here and on both talk pages are WP:NPA by any stretch of the imagination. He has also had warning from many others in the past over all such articles. How many more warnings? The first time i did so he responded affirmatively, then went again and i wrote him (without a template), and he went right back to attacking and labeling.(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC));[reply]
    Lihaas is a biased contributor. He has no business "warning" me. First, I accepted him as an unbiased contributor so I showed good faith. However, he rapidly became aggressive, started accusing me of whatever, and started threatening me. I absolutely have no problem with the neutral point of view. However, there are certain things that just cannot be neutralized. In those things we need to at least initially give the subject matter (especially if it is a human being with a vulnerable family [3]) some benefit of the doubt until a strong neutral point of view emerges with time. It is only human. Lihaas is biased to start off with, and the other person he mentions in his complain above is as bisaed as Lihaas is. Many Lahoris just cannot be unbiased about Karachi. Why is it? I don't know. I don't see many Karachiites going around commenting on Lahore-based anything. But some Lahoris make their business to poke around and malign Karachi-based people and entities. Something is up!!! M12390 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OgreBot + Commons images

    Please note: I am requesting to create a supervised automated bot to assist in the process of clearing the {{subst:ncd}} (i.e., commons) backlog. I am requesting approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OgreBot 2, and I wanted to get consensus here for it. Please feel free to comment here or there. Of course, I am going to be extremely careful with this bot, and any unforeseen issues will be printed out and I will have to fix them manually. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Community ban for User:Shutterbug

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Ban enacted. Courcelles 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    See enclosed relevant evidence.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    Sanction or remedy that this user violated
    1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation
    2. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted
    3. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Account_limitation
    4. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Editors_instructed
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 03:33, 2 June 2009 - Blocked 24 hours for violation of topic ban.
    2. 19:57, 17 May 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Wobblegenerator, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    3. 18:12, 19 May 2010 - Shutterbug sockmaster account indef blocked, for sockpuppetry.
    4. 20:28, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:MrSimmonds, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    5. 20:29, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:JessaRinaldi, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    6. 22:57, 24 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jbsweden9, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    7. 01:59, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:AlexJohnTorres12, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    8. 03:42, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Jimgreensboro, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    9. 03:44, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Mike Greenwood, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    10. 03:45, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Monsignore, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    11. 03:49, 27 August 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Fairyday, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    12. 20:25, 24 September 2010 - Shutterbug's sockpuppet, User:Margaret's son, indef blocked for violation of topic ban and account limitation of Shutterbug.
    Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)
    1. 01:31, 29 May 2009 - Notice of WP:ARBSCI restrictions by Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    2. 03:31, 2 June 2009 - Block notice for violation of topic ban by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    3. 17:06, 19 May 2010 - Indef block notice for sockpuppetry by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    1. The account is already subject to probation, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Article_probation.
    2. The account is already topic-banned, and restricted to one account, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Shutterbug_topic-banned_and_restricted.
    3. After violating probation, violating the topic-ban, violating the restriction to one account, and violating site policy on sockpuppetry, the account has been indef blocked [3].
    Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban proposal

    Per RfC input at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach Test (2010), I am proposing on behalf of the multiple editors in good standing commenting at the RfC that the following topic ban be enacted:

    "Danglingdiagnosis (talk · contribs) is prohibited from using any community input process for proposing the removal or curtailment of display of any public-domain Rorschach Test images, broadly construed, until September 25th, 2011." Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Process Discussion

    • ps, Jclemens, you should have notified Danglingdiagnosis. I have done so. It might also be a good idea, in the interest of fairness, to notify everyone who commented at the RfC.→ ROUX ₪ 06:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, good catch. I do tend to rely on others' use of watchlists on topics and pages in which they have an expressed interest. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as why the duration I proposed wasn't longer, it is true that consensus can change, and I'm really hesitant to propose an indefinite prohibition on any user bringing up a topic in good faith. In formulating the restrictions proposed here, I tried to balance the disruptiveness of repeated, essentially unchanged requests for removal vs. the WP:CCC principle. If the community, as judged by the uninvolved administrator who ends up closing this proposal, believes that a longer topic ban is appropriate, I would not oppose it. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • When/if it changes, either someone else will bring it up or the user can appeal the ban; if consensus changed then they should have no problem getting the ban lifted. T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most important two words there, Jclemens, are 'good faith.' Danglingdiagnosis neither brought the proposal in good faith, nor argued in good faith. Instead, he repeatedly evaded answering direct questions, preferring to use rhetorical tricks (such as somehow defining 'censorship' as 'releasing information') to try his case. He proved in this instance, and in the previous one that he is immune to actual logic or comprehension of policy, and is the poster child for WP:IDHT. → ROUX ₪ 08:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell DD absolutely acted in good faith here, working toward improvement of the article. He didn't seem completely bound to the notion of removing images as others above have claimed, and when the RfC was submitted for him, he was still in process of dialog with other editors, asking for opinions on what an RfC to improve the article might contain. Those aren't the actions of the closed-minded ideologue he's presented as. Roux above brings up IDHT, but in the end they were DD's arguments that weren't being heard, as evidenced by the total lack of interest in discussing them. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) (sorry, ROUX, I editconflicted with you when trying to edit my statement)[reply]
      • Exactly as he did last time, he was attempting an end-run around the consensus on the talkpage of the article. Last time he pretended it was under the umbrella of 'involuntary health consequences,' citing also concerns about photosensitive epilepsy--which he then proceeded to blithely ignore in order to focus on his pet peeve. Doing so very deliberately and specifically was an attempt to bypass the extant consensus at the talkpage of the article in question. That is not acting in good faith. This time he tried to gain exactly the same result, via a different set of rhetorical tricks. He was seriously attempting to argue that releasing information is censorship, while preventing such release is not. That is not acting in good faith. You say he was engaging in dialogue to find out what such an RfC should contain? Sure he was. And quite deliberately ignoring everyone saying "There is no need to bring this, consensus has not changed here." DD's--and yours, I might add--intense focus on not listening to anything that disagrees with you is also not acting in good faith. → ROUX ₪ 00:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again: DD did not submit this RfC. People were saying there was no need to bring this... so fine: he didn't. He was working to see if there was a compromise that could be reached, trying to find something that COULD be brought to find a new and better consensus. Maybe he would have brought the RfC anyway, but so far he was just working on it as a possible thing to "bring" if consensus supported it. Note that even after it was an active RfC he was having dialog with Xeno (IIRC) to improve the questions. Crcarlin (talk) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And again--you seem to be missing the salient point here--the consensus has been crystal clear for years now: the images stay. Period. End of story. He was told this the last time he tried to do this, and was told then that he was trying to sidestep consensus. The exact same thing happened here. And that is why he is going to be topicbanned, whatever the length of time may be, from doing it again. He has shown that he is unable to accept that what he wants will simply not happen here, for a very wide variety of reasons, no matter what rhetorical tricks and ignoring dissent he tries. → ROUX ₪ 00:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Roux is completely correct. Consensus has been clear for ages; this latest RfC was nothing short of disruptive and trying to promote his own views, which are obviously against consensus. I see no evidence that he is trying to find a compromise given that there have been multiple discussion over this same topic before, and none of them have been in his favor. He keeps trying, and refuses to accept the final decisions made. This sort of stubbornness is detrimental to the project and is only annoying. An indefinite topic ban is the only thing that will stop this ridiculous behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly I hope this is a place to bring attention to a non-working wikipedia article link.

    I was searching for "Senkaku Islands" from google, and clicking on the wikipedia result gave me a "404 Not Found" error. Typing "senkaku islands" in Wikipedia's search box will throw up the same error. Similarly, clicking on "senkaku islands" on the disambigiuos Senkaku article page shows up the same 404 error. Same with this redirect page. In fact, the only way I can reach the article is to search for the less common Diaoyutai.

    A check with the move logs show that the page has recently been subject with quite a number of moves, due to it being a result territorial disputes between China and Japan. (That was the reason why I was searching for the article originally, as I was looking for more background on the incident). The last discussion regarding the move resulted in a "no-move" agreement among the editors, but the prior moves may have somehow "broken" the way Wikipedia is linking to the article.

    If I'm reporting this to the wrong board, hopefully someone can re-direct me to the right place to report this error. As this is a hot news topic at the moment, the article will be highly sought after and the bad link should be fixed as soon as possible. Thanks in advance!Zhanzhao (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, it works for me... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too; either you have a virus sending all links to external spam sites or something broke somewhere temporarily. The better venue for questions of this nature is WP:VPT, by the way. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brett Jon Salisbury

    this may not be the correct place to bring this, please forgive me if so. i am having a discussion with a user at this deletion talk page. it appears this IP, the main editor and possibly author of the article, may be borrowing other users accounts (notice two seperate posts signed by two different usernames, posted in the same edit by the IP editor). cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    upon further inspection, the author of the aritcle is obviously the same person as this IP. if you look at the history of the deletion talk page, the authors account was used to change other users comments from "delete" to "keep", now the IP is impersonating the users whos comments he previously changed. WookieInHeat (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Fugitive Pakistani politician Dr Imran Farooq murdered on doorstep in London Mirror.co.uk
    2. ^ Conspiracy theories: Mystery Murder of Dr Imran Farooq PakTribute.com
    3. ^ Imran Farooq: widow's tears as she appeals for help to catch killer telegraph.co.uk
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=387257680"