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 MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 26 December 2010 (Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 2d) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220.). 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


    Ban proposal for Jake Picasso/Duncan

    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.
    Jake Duncan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hereby community-banned. Now all we need is for a sysop to annotate the block log to record the ban. (Note: This is my first time closing a community ban proposal, so if anyone has issues with my closure please let me know. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 02:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to propose a formal ban for Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) aka Jake Duncan (talk · contribs), a fairly prolific sockpuppeteer and hoaxer. I came across his latest incarnation yesterday, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#User_creating_apparent_hoax_articles. Also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jake Picasso/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jake Picasso. There was a note that he was banned on his userpage so I speedied his creations, but I then realised that the ban had been placed unilaterally by an admin who blocked some of his previous socks. Hopefully those articles can stay deleted and we can confirm that we do indeed want this editor banned. Fences&Windows 19:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology

    Its become apparent that ideological editing has, in some cases, distorted our coverage of Scientology related articles. I'm particularly concerned about BLPs and have started a mini-project to review. Help wanted; pay (as ever) is negotiable.--Scott Mac 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Please don't canvass on WR, especially not in a thread devoted to attacking a Wikipedia editor who is known for working on Scientology articles as the participants there are not likely to be neutral. See WP:CANVASS.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late...[1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how WP:CANVASS applies to a Wikiproject invitation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVASS has absolutely nothing to do with a notification/request about a specific Wikiproject invitation. SilverserenC 03:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the project can be interpreted as an attack on a specific user, that might apply, as might other policy. A specific user was identified as part of the wider discussion that lead up to this, in off-wiki emails on (wikien-l, I think, but haven't checked).
    I don't know that it's actually a problem, but there's a credible cause to ask the question as to whether it's a problem, based on the prior discussion. AGF covers not assuming that it is in fact an attack before looking at it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CANVASS applies to all Wikipedia discussions, and warns against "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)." Since it was posted in a thread that was very critical of an editor of Scientology articles, the other posters there had known opinions on his work. If Scott had created a fresh thread to announce the campaign, then that would have been different. There are plenty of venues on Wikipedia to notify interested users appropriately.   Will Beback  talk  05:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors with agendas have been distorting Scientology related BLPs and violating or being careless with policy for their own reasons. I want editors whose opinions on that are known and negative. We need to get this right. Will, I'm sorry, but you've got poor form on BLPs. There seems to be a mood that says we can go easy on negative material when we don't like the person.--Scott Mac 13:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need for off-Wiki canvassing. WR is not a place known for respecting living people.   Will Beback  talk  13:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Places can't have respect, people can. Perhaps you might help ensure we don't mistreat BLP subjects rather than rules-lawyering over a post I made that harms no one, and may help draw attention to a real problem.--Scott Mac 14:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But you feel it's appropriate to put this kind of canvassing on a site that is notorious for its mistreatment of living Wikipedia editors? Corvus cornixtalk 21:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed like we are oh so nice to each other on wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    Nicer here than there. It's a cesspool.   Will Beback  talk  17:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IANAAdmin , but I want to put down two of my persistent concerns. 1) In general WR canvassing has been and is a real problem. It used to be commonplace in BLP deletion discussions, for example. So far I've seen no action taken about that 2)There is also the real problem that Scott Mac ignores or insults everyone who doesn't share his radical view of BLP treatment (not BLP policy because he is beginning to step way beyond policy, as a recent Arbcom clarification request by Will Beback can reveal). The problem is that both Arbcom and AN/I use to dodge the issue, probably because Scott Mac's work is overall positive (I have no problem recognizing that) and because no one wants to be witch-hunted as "weak on BLP" in the current "political climate" of WP. If anyone more skilled than me at this has ideas on how to tackle these two issues, I'd be delighted. --Cyclopiatalk 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fresh eyes needed please

    Closed by Mjroots pending opening of an RFC

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    I'm in a dispute with an editor who is also a fellow admin. I'd rather not take the issue to ANI as I'm not looking for any administrative action to be taken against the editor in question, but would like some uninvolved opinion please.

    BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) has nominated a large number of templates I created for deletion. In many cases, she removed entries from those templates before nominating them, thus the nominated templates had been "degraded". Said templates were also removed from articles before nomination.

    There has been discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent town and village templates and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#When to create navboxes for villages?, the templates nominated for deletion are at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 19.

    By the way BHG grouped the nominations, it appeared that once a template had 5 bluelinks, there could possibly be justification to keep it. BHG states that this was not her intention. After I argued to keep certain templates, BHG has further degraded some of them, and removed them from more articles. There has been zero input from other editors, even after I stated that if any entry was objected to, then it should be raised on the talk page of the template in quesion. BHG has ignored this and carried on degrading the templates.

    To my mind, it seems that BHG is using TfD to push her opinions forward. When there is one oppose and one support, the only possible result is "no consensus", which defaults to keep. Although he has not !voted in any of the TfDs, ClemRutter (talk · contribs) commented at WT:KENT Deletion seems to be a pointless and un-constructive activity. If templates are found to be useful by just one editor, and that helps to document this populous county then they are doing a good job. There are many jobs that need doing. These pointless TFD just waste good editors time as they are dragged from article creation into defending the template in the labrynthine world of the wiki-gnome. Give it a rest and do something useful like trying to pull all these villages to GA status.

    From the time that the first template was nominated for deletion, I stopped creating new templates while the issues were dealt with, hoping that the community would give some guidance as the when a template would be sustainable and when it would not be. I put forward a proposal at WT:KENT, which BHG strongly opposed as premature. Again, there has been no further input from any other editor. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BHG and Clem both notified of discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the discussion continued on my User page User talk:ClemRutter#Kent templates --ClemRutter (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bit of a waste of time for WP:AN, particularly given that Mjroots has grossly misrepresented the discussions which have taken place so far. Mjroots has also enaged in partisanly selective notification of this post to AN, by failing to notify the involved editors who have explicitly disagreed with Mjroots.

    In summary:

    • Mjroots has created a large series of pointless navboxes, by relying on the essay WP:NBFILL, and appears not to have read the relevant guidelines WP:NAVBOX and WP:REDNOT
    • Over 40 of these navboxes have been nominated at TFD, and in not one case has anyone other than Mjroots supported keeping any of them
    • Apart from the !votes at TFD, 3 other editors have explicitly opposed Mjroots's use of the navboxes: User:PamD, User:Weakopedia and User:Ssilvers. Those editors should have been notified of this complaint.
    • The comment by ClemRutter was not that the navboxes should be kept, but rather that it was too much hassle to delete them
    • No other editor has supported Mjroots's creation of these navboxes for small villages, and no other editor has supported Mjroot's padding them out with links which breach WP:NAVBOX

    Here's what happened.

    I noticed that Mjroots was spamming barely-relevant templates onto some biographies on my watchlist. The first one was {{Tonbridge}}, which Mjroots applied to articles on people who were pupils of Tonbridge School. The discussion here led to the removal of those templates from those aticles.

    I then noticed that Mjroots had applied a navbox for a small village to a biographical article to which it had minimal relevance. This was discussed on Mjroots talk page, when I noticed that there was more of this. The only editor who joined in the discussion was Weakopedia, who supported my view.[2] [3]

    Along the way, we had another discussion of Mjroot's tenmplate-spamming, in relation to H. F. Stephens, in which Mjroots falsely accused me of "vandalism". Mjroots is an admin, and so should should be aware of WP:NOTVAND, and should not try to justify their actions in a content dispute by making unfounded allegations.

    Mjroots then quite sensibly opened a centralised discussion at WT:KENT#Kent_town_and_village_templates, where one other editor (PamD) joined in and supported my view.[4][5][6]

    I then took two of the templates to TfD, as a trial run: see KENT#First_one_at_TFD. Both templates were deleted (here and here), and User:Ssilvers posted to to WT:KENT to support my view

    I then nominated many more of these teplates at TFD; see TfD Dec 19#Kent_villages_navboxes. So far, not even one editor other than Mjroots has advocated keeping any of these navboxes, whose existence mjroots justified at WT:KENT per the essay (and rejected guideline) WP:NBFILL. In subsequent discussions Mjroots has shown no sign of being aware of the existing guidelines at WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX, and has repeatedly refused to engage with requests both at TFD and at WT:KENT to examine these navboxes in the light of WP:NAVBOX.

    I have indeed removed from many of these navboxes articles which do not meet the criteria set out at WP:NAVBOX. In every case I have explicitly set out the remaining in detailed edit summaries. Where I have nominated at TFD a navbox from which I have removed the irrelevant links, I have explictly noted that in the nomination, but despite this Mjroots still falsely accused me here of doing so without acknowledgement.

    Mjroots lists ClemRutter as a supporter, but ClemRutter's comment at WT:KENT was to oppose the deletions as a waste of time, rather than to support either the existence or the content of the navboxes. When I asked ClemRutter on Clem's talk whether zie believed that the links met the test set out in WP:NAVBOX, Clem answer was no, not yet.

    So the real problem here is that Mjroots continues to follow the essay WP:NBFILL, and refuses to assess the navboxes against the guidelines WP:REDNOT and WP:NAVBOX.

    Yet after all this discussion, and the complete absence of any support for Mroots view, Mjroots has lodged a complaint here which systematically misrepresents the discussions so far. That suggest to me that some further action may be needed. Is this an ANI issue, or should I opened an RFC/U on Mjroots? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Note that the TFDs about which Mjroots complains include at least 4 navboxes-to-nowhere: 1 here and 3 here, which consist only of redlinks. Why does Mjroots does not help out by supporting speedy deletion of this pointless clutter rather than making silly complaints of misconduct against the editor who is trying to clear up the mess he has made? -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The notification of ClemRutter was entirely in accordance with {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard}} as I had mentioned him in the request I made for fresh eyes on the difference of opinion we have. I did not need to notify the other editors BHG mentions because I had not mentioned them in the post. They are quite capable of finding their way to TfD and commenting, as they have done in the past. WP:REDNOT is a guideline, which may be ignored. There are plenty of navboxes with redlinks. My justification for a redlinks is "would the target be able to sustain an article per GNG, V, RS etc". If yes, then a redlink is justified, and such redlink may promote article creation. WP:NAVBOX is an essay, which as a section headed "advantages", but no section headed "disadvantages". The advantages section links to WP:NBFILL.
    BHG has continued to remove entries from templates, and templates from articles after I made my feelings over this known to her. My approach would have been to have left the templates as created and places whilst discussing them at TfD. Any individual entries that were objected to would have been raised on the talk page of that template, and discussed there.
    As to the deletion of templates, I've not objected to the deletion of the smaller templates. They were created for the sake of completeness, but if we can establish a threshold by consensus then they would almost certainly fall below such a threshold. My preference would be that all templates are kept, but it's not such a big issue if they go.
    My addition of the templates to articles linked on those templates was not, IMHO, spamming but merely standard practice where all articles on the template have the template on the article. Some navboxes contain lots of entries to closely linked subjects, such as {{Empire A ships}}, whereas with the Kent navboxes, the common link is the locality to which all entries have a connection to. I have also been accused of adding unreferenced info to articles by adding templates to articles. By adding the template, I have do no such thing. All entries on a template were found either directly linked from the locality in question, or they linked from the target back to the locality. If both articles did not contain the same info, that is not my fault nor my responsibility.
    So please, can we get back to the original reason for my posting here, some fresh eyes on the situation, opinions voiced, and perhaps some consensus as to when a navbox can be justified and when it cannot. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still at it. :(
    1. You misrepresented the discussions so far, by falsely claiming that there was only one other involved editor, and notified only that one. That's a skewing of the discussion.
    2. You still don't acknowledge that your desire to populate your village templates with people has already been explicitly opposed by the three other editors who have commented on it. Your failure to acknowledge this makes your complaint here look like forum-shopping
    3. You deny spamming, by claiming that you were trying to ensure that "all articles on the template have the template on the article". That ignores your spamming of {{Tonbridge}} onto dozens of articles which didn't meet even that minimal test, and it continues to ignore the objections expressed by 4 editors to your inclusion of people into village templates
    4. You complain that "BHG has continued to remove entries from templates, and templates from articles after I made my feelings over this known to her" ... but again you don't acknowledge that the only three other editors who commented on this have supported my position. What are you trying to achieve by this repeated misrepresetation of easily-verified facts?
    5. You have not at any point explained any reader benefit from your collection of navboxes-to-nowhwhere. I can see no way in which those provide any benefit to readers, and you have not suggested any way in which they benefit readers. Regardless of any thresholds which may or may not be agreed, why not clear that pure-junk out of the way by supporting speedy deletion per G7? You have not opposed deletion, but you have done nothing to assist the tidyup.
    6. You are still either unwilling or unable to even try to explain why, for example, you believe that readers would want to navigate from the articles on Denis Thatcher and Margaret Thatcher to numerous mill-related sub-sections of an article on mills on a river near a town where they kept a second home in the 1960s. That question to you is still outstanding at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Kent#When_to_create_navboxes_for_villages.3F ... so before you ask for yet more editors to join those whose contribution to the discussions so far you want to ignore, why not try discussing this yourself?
    7. You still have not engaged with the WP:WEIGHT issue of the relevance of these links to the articles to which you add them. Per WP:WEIGHT, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject".
    --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're still at it too. . Speedy deletion of the templates would not allow discussion of the issue, nor any consensus to be reached over a threshold. Their existence until the end of the discussion period will not seriously harm Wikipedia. No other editors (to my knowledge) have removed entries from templates, only yourself. I explained the Thatcher situation at WT:KENT, only for you to promptly remove DT from the template, despite the Thathcher's living in Lamberhurst for a good number of years. So far, it's been almost all your opinions vs my opinions. Shall we both step back now and allow others a say? Mjroots (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Boggle. On what basis do you think that there is any purpose in retaining your zero-bluelinks navboxes-to-nowhere, or why you need to waste the community's time on a full discussion for them?
    You may be right that I am the only editor who has removed entries from your templates. But you are still in denial about the fact that three other editors agree those entries should not be there, and nobody other than you has objected.
    As to the Thatchers, you seem unable to read my repeated reminder that you have not offered your explanation of the benefit to readers of links from those articles to numerous mill-related sub-sections of an article on a river near a town where they kept a second home in the 1960s. (So far, I see no ref for you assertion that they lived there, or for how long they owned the house, and you ignore the fact that they owned two houses at the time).
    If you really believe that such links are worth having, why don't you go and add to David Cameron a series of links to non-notable buildings near his constituency home in Chipping Norton? They'd be just as relevant to him as the mills are to the Thatchers (i.e. utterly irrelevant). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mjroots is wasting his time and everybody else's. I hereby sentence Mjroots to reference or nominate for deletion fifty (50) unsourced biographies within 14 days. (FX: Bangs gavel) Next case. Oh, and merry Christmas everyone. Apart from the unbeliever majority, to whom: happy holidays. Guy (Help!) 01:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BHG has suggested that an RFC on the issue would bring in fresh eyes. I intend to raise a RFC in the next few days, and therefore am going to close this thread. In response to JzG, Unreffed BLPs should be improved by referencing, not nominated for deletion. :-p Merry Xmas all. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Logging of IP Block Exemptions

    Hi all. Just a quick note. While it's not policy, etc, etc - can we please keep logging granting of IP block exemptions? There haven't been any updates to the logs since last May, and it's useful for admin/checkuser work if records are kept of these. I know it's in the userrights log, but it's not really comprehensive enough. Anyways - if you're granting this user right, can you maybe update Wikipedia talk:IP block exemption/log at the same time? Thanks! - Alison ❤ 12:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing as how I'd never ever heard of that log, I added it to MediaWiki:Userrights-groups-help to remind folks when flipping switches. Revert if you want. Courcelles 15:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot could so totally hand this. Unfortunately, it's Christmas eve, so :) - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've filed a bot request, but in the meantime, I'll update the list if I hand out the right. TNXMan 16:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An update has been posted here. TNXMan 17:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested edit

    Resolved

    Please assist Can someone add {{WikiProject Canada}} to Talk:Canadian_Senate_Standing_Committee_on_the_Internal_Economy,_Budgets_and_Administration? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Graham87 12:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested edit

    Please help Can someone add {{WikiProject Canada}} to Talk:William_Jackson_(Canadian_administrator)? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I might be missing something, but that talk page isn't protected and adding the template seems entirely uncontroversial so there doesn't seem to be any need for an admin to do this. Or I'm missing something here. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing something. ;-) When I click on the red link, and choose to create the page, it says "Unauthorized", etc. I think this is because the name of the page contains the word "admin". [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing that up! Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Nakon 08:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois) AfD.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland Park Presbyterian Church (Illinois) began on 8 December 2010 and no one is commenting. Please consider adding your views. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Expand deleted

    As my "extreme" sport of 2010, I have closed the TFD on the {{expand}} template as "delete". There are apparently 17979 pages which transcluded that template, is there a bot which will do this work? (This is not urgent, indeed if someone wants to appeal my closure to DRV, it might be an idea to keep the transclusions in case I am overturned.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I was planning to do it anyway. But we should wait some days or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored the template because deleting it without removing the transclusions first means breaking 18k pages, and a DRV is inevitable anyway. If it's going to be deleted, the transclusions should be cleaned up first. Rd232 talk 15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, a temporary restore while the technicalities are sorted out is OK with me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and that's all that's intended with this restore. I would add, though, that I would support a DRV, because the alternatives to deletion (substantial, even drastic amendment) were not really taken on board by those who had taken against the template in its current form. For example, I had suggested "it would be easy enough to change the template so that it produces no output if the reason= parameter isn't filled. That would be a pretty drastic step, but it would address most of the misuse concerns. There's also plenty of less drastic things which can be done to address those concerns, eg a bot identify pages with the template on for more than 2 years and/or with large expansion since being added, and dropping a note on the talk pages to suggest removal or adding a reason parameter". Or flagging stubs that use the template, etc etc. Rd232 talk 15:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran my bot in the past to remove the template from stubs. I can do it again. We can also start removing it from pages |date= older than 18 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, the arguments regarding a reason parameter were somewhat flawed in that we already partially supported this as the second unnamed parameter (|2=) which just needed to be documented and used. For example: {{Expand|article|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet}} While I don't think blanking the template output is the right idea when a concern-type parameter isn't given, I did add support in the sandbox version to add the page to a hidden tracking category should a reason or talk page section not be given. This template is also usable on more than just articles with the first unnamed parameter (|1=), which also wasn't discussed in the TfD. I too would support a DRV in this case, especially given the comments of the closing admin which seem to indicate he should have !voted in the TfD instead of closing it. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tony1

    Resolved

    This user is abusing Wikipedia by removing information in infoboxes. Tinton5 (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing abusive about it, and this doesn't belong on the admin noticeboard. If you object to Tony's edits please discuss it with him directly or on the article talk page. You will notice he has responded reasonably to your objection already. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you remove my notification to Tony that you started this thread? Is your complaint resolved? Can we remove this now? Antandrus (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it has. Tinton5 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=404362838"