Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 65.93.15.80 (talk) at 05:35, 31 January 2011 (→Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colchester, Vermont). 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


    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive220#Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs

    (Reposting after this was archived twice.)

    For SfDs, would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/10#Maharashtra geography stubs sub cats, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/December/1#Template:Multiple stub? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp so this will not be archived. This still has not been dealt with. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you to T. Canens and Ruslik0 for closing those discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/3, Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/January/5, and Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/28 have uncontentious unclosed discussions.

    Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/October/8#United States film biography stubs is more contentious. Would an admin (or admins) close these discussions? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, T. Canens, for closing Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/November/28. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Timestamp so this will not be archived. Several debates still need to be closed. Cunard (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Timestamp so this will not be archived. Several debates still need to be closed. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#Nicholas Hagger and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 8#Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations

    Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15#Nicholas Hagger and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 8#Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Working on the DRV. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Lifebaka, for closing the DRV, and Ruslik0 for closing the CfD. Cunard (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Asserghozlan's rudeness

    I'm not certain, but Asserghozlan's edit summary seemed a tad rude at Ahmed Nazif. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So ask them to tone it down. This is not an appropriate use for the administrator's noticeboard. --Danger (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't contact other userpages anymore. PS: I weren't sure if I came to the right place or not. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    User warned for making personal attacks. User warned for edit warring. -Atmoz (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Policy template

    As this affect a template used on many key Wikipedia pages, I'm bringing it here rather than just making the change The various templates used at the head of most or perhaps all policy pages, e.g. [[TEMPLATE:Enforcement policy list]] has the first line reading & linking to "Five Pillars", as if the various policies listed in it were the five pillars-- for an example, see WP:HARASSMENT. I think this is confusing, and suggest that the first line ought to read (and link to) to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I also find those templates confusing. --Danger (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I edited {{Enforcement policy list}} to link to Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines#Editor_behavior, was that the kind of thing you were thinking of? Fences&Windows 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Autoblockfinder?

    Does anybody know of an alternative tool to autoblockfinder? It's expired. :/ I find that tool pretty handy when pitching in on the unblock mailing list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a clone of the tool. --Chris 14:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also Nakon's copy, which was also created after someone found the account hosting the old tool had expired. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:MFD backlog

    It looks like everything under the January 23 and January 22 headers can safely be deleted except for Wikipedia:Confusion, which may need either a relist or a no-consensus close. Literally everything else from the 22nd and 23rd has a unanimous consensus to delete. (Note, that once the Prep School wikiproject is deleted, Template:User Prep School and Template:WikiProject Prep School can be safely deleted via G8.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)

    Would an admin close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mark Church (Stratford, Connecticut)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    working on it. Ironholds (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it just me, or does it have a couple of hours to go? Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the length and depth of the business there, I imagine you'd want to get an early start. But yes, the original nom is dated 03:48. Also: you're a brave soul. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen so far it's going to be a matter of "this is what AfD is for. This is what AfD is not for. I want you to all read the lists and then apologise, loudly, to the community, for wasting their time" :p. I'll shove a closing template on and get to work on one of my trademark Longarse Closes. Ironholds (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Ironholds, for reviewing the discussion. The AfD began on 03:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC), and it is 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC) right now, so it can be closed at any time. Cunard (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the same door we ought knock down while brandishing pitchforks tipped with trout? :-) --Danger (talk) 02:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tipped with trout? TROUT? You should be desysopped for saying something so offensive. It's FLAMING trout, thank you very much. Just because I'm the new guy doesn't mean I don't deserve an incendiary aquatic animal poked into my face on the end of a farm implement like any other admin. Ironholds (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Setting trout on fire? I'll bring the chips and soda! HalfShadow 03:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about needing to send hate-mail or not. I did think there was a specific resolution reached by consensus for the subset of New York ones which could have been noted in the close, which was that two of them should be redirected to a third, merged article. Instead the ones-to-redirect got "Keep" decision noted at them. I redirected them with edit summary stating that is what i believe is the actual consensus in the AFD. I believe that will stick, knock on wood. Otherwise, i am not sure about the close, though i see the point to cut off a possibly-confusing discussion. --doncram 03:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing I would like to respectfully request is that you (or anybody else) not add ===Headings=== to any future AFDs. It really screws up the log page the AFD is transcluded on. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the handling of this AfD to be very sad. Don't get me wrong, the close was entirely correct. It would also have been entirely correct if it had been done only a day into the AfD; every user involved in it, and all of the others who read it over, knew what the outcome was going to be very early on. Instead of acting upon this, the "all AfDs must last exactly and precisely 7 days" process overtook everyone's common sense, probably causing more harm than good. An experienced editor could have provided some guidance on other alternatives to the nominator, the nomination could have been withdrawn, the days of discussion could have been put more fruitfully toward finding a path to address these articles in smaller chunks and in a more appropriate way, and considerably fewer feathers could have been ruffled. Next time, can we please stop this in its tracks much earlier? Process for process' sake is harmful to this project, particularly when the process interferes with improvement of the encyclopedia. Risker (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colchester, Vermont

    I have been given {{uw-test4im}} for my opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colchester, Vermont. Can someone explain to me why I deserve an immediate block for lodging an opinion? 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=411109865"