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 64.255.164.34 (talk) at 14:30, 8 April 2011 (response). 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


    Third call to provide closure for an RfC

    The link is here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Damian block violates WP:IAR

    Peter Damian is well aware of how to contact Arbcom, and more than capable of arguing his own case as and when he chooses to do so. WP:AN is not the place for a broader discussion of the definition of ban v block.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Seeing some of the examples of “admin culture” at the March 2011 Update Talk-page it occurred to me that the block of User:Peter Damian was (at least partially) motivated by comparable kinds of sentiments. IMHO, such blocks violate WP:IAR (and I paraphrase): "If character differences prevent you from allowing Wikipedia to be improved, ignore them". The implication is that this block was unjust and should be reverted. -- Hpvpp (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you for real? Peter has been community banned following an Arbitration enforcement block over 1 and a half years ago. After that, he's evaded his ban numerous times through sockpuppets. How the hell does "Ignore all rules" factor into this?--Atlan (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your description of events is ah flawed.©Geni 11:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this relates to the block of User:Peter Damian VII who was working with him on Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. I really dont think (s)he is aware of the background of the case. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but they link specifically to User:Peter Damian in their post, rather than User:Peter Damian VII.--Atlan (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh I try to assume good faith on misremembering a name. This whole thread is really weird especially below :/ The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone put this thread out of it's misery? I tried but got caught in a conflict that moved another editors post. Given ARBCOM's stated intentions towards desysopping me I can't be dealing with anything to tricky anyway. Not allowed guv. More than my job's worth etc. etc. Pedro :  Chat  21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No harm in letting Hpvpp get one more comment in so we actually understand what they're on about.--Atlan (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. The long reach of ARBCOM are even now on IRC and updating their super secret page of evidence on me no doubt, so I'll step out of this. Pedro :  Chat  21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, you can get pills for that these days :) Yes, you have just popped up on email - someone has asked if anyone knows what you are on about. I guess we made this page so seekrit that even we can't find it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused Pedro - where are these "stated intentions"? Do feel free to email me. –xenotalk 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, you can violate IAR? *scratches head* By, like, obeying all the other rules, or something? :) --Conti|✉ 21:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, has Peter Damian finally abandoned his plans to utterly destroy wikipedia, decided to edit contructively, promised to not bring again the same issues against the same people, and asked for a unblock?
    (I asked for his un-banning long time because he had a lot of expertise to improve articles. But he decided to blew up that second (third?) opportunity by bringing up again the same stuff that got him banned) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole point of IAR is focused on improving the encyclopedia; and it could be argued that allowing Peter Damiam to work on articles in a constructive manner improves the encyclopedia. We really shouldn't assume that editors who get themselves banned are not capable of good contributions: Peter Damiam has a track history of excellent editing, and is undoubtedly an expert in several areas. So, Hpvpp is perfectly entitled to his opinion, even if many editors will consider the problems related to Peter Damian outweigh the quality of his potential contributions. It's actually healthy to review these sort of decisions once in a while, but not too often, and ArbCom will understand that concept. It's a truism that bogeymen are quite often community constructs, rather than real monsters. I hope a bit of perspective helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    (Sorry for having “blocked” in the heading.)

    To elaborate: I was working on Fads and fallacies in the name of science and noticed that Peter Damian VI (as well as VII and VIII) was actually the same as Peter Damian who was banned, but using “sock puppets”. As I could see some merit in his contributions, I wondered what was going on and decided to investigate a bit. I read the block log, lots of policies and essays as well as some material outside Wikipedia and even contacted him in real life in order to try and understand why he was “community banned”. What I learned made me feel vulnerable and I decided to back off. However, after reading some of the comments on March 2011 Update I realized that back then already Peter Damian had come to a comparable conclusion, viz. the problem was the “admin culture”. And so I decided to see if I could contribute towards a solution.

    What I believe happened is that when Peter Damian’s efforts to actually do something about this “admin culture” were ineffectual, the relation between him and the then current admins polarized. His solution to break the deadlock was to get rid of the then current admins and start all over anew. This was not appreciated and because his actions were felt to be disruptive he eventually got “community banned”.

    The problems I see are as follows.

    1- the notion of Wikipedia being a community is debatable and has been disputed (e.g. see m:The Wikipedia Community)
    2- WP:BAN specifies that the discussion to determine consensus in the Wikipedia community before applying a ban is held within the admin group and this certainly does not involve the Wikipedia community at large
    3- the fact that the notion of banning exist at all is an implicit admission that there are instances where it is effectively impossible to achieve a consensus which involves the editor under discussion

    The implications are as follows.

    a- the term “community ban” is a misnomer, because (i) discussions do not involve a substantial majority of the Wikipedia community and (ii) while there are (currently) 774 active admins (out of a total of 1783, see WP:LA) discussions to ban are unlikely to involve a substantial majority of admins either
    b- the “community” in “community ban” only reflects the community as perceived by the group of admins actually involved in the discussion

    The conclusion that can be drawn here is that it is indeed reasonable to assume that amongst groups of admins there exists something of a “culture”. Indeed, the various complaints at the Foundation, as mentioned above, suggests as much. However, while this is obviously a matter for serious concern at the highest levels I would like to suggest that it can perhaps be addressed at “grass roots” level as follows.

    Becoming an editor and getting banned is very much like the first two steps of WP:BRD. Becoming an editor is a bold move to do something worthwhile and getting banned is effectively getting reverted (to unregistered user). Ideally, this should then be followed by a discussion until the pertinent differences are sorted out. Clearly, this won’t work in the case of vandals, but in cases like Peter Damian it is worthwhile to persist. Indeed, the decision to ban has done more harm than good in that not only has Wikipedia received some bad press, it also has lost a valuable editor, which is why I said that his ban violates WP:IAR. Our purpose here is to build an encyclopedia, not a community, and all rules, policies, guidelines and essays serve only that purpose and are liable to be modified as and when necessary.

    Now, the claimed disruption was not to Wikipedia as such, but rather to the group of editors involved (although I concede that this could be seen as constituting a form of indirect disruption to Wikipedia). In a sense, the ban was an instance of "cutting off the nose to spite the face". However, it takes all sorts to make the world (and likewise Wikipedia) and if some admins turn out to be incapable of dealing with serious criticism then it is better for them to step back and let others assess the problem. Accordingly, I propose that a project group be formed to investigate the possibility that there are indeed instances of “admin culture” as currently being alleged at the Foundation (as mentioned above) and I further propose that it would be prudent to reinstate Peter Damian and invite him to join that project group. -- Hpvpp (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Your assumptions are wrong, and so are, subsequently, your implications. WP:BAN clearly states that the community at large and not just the admins decide on a community ban. I haven't looked it up, but I'm fairly certain that a number of non-admins participated in the community ban discussion for Damian. --Conti|✉ 07:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They did, and this non-admin editor (having been beaten up by Peter a couple of times) was clearly of the opinion that the benefit of his contributions outweighed any behavioral issues. His content contributions, work rate and willingness to do research are rare. The fact that he does not tolerate fools gladly is as much a problem for WIkipedia as for him. It was also clear that he got upset about issues with a coupe of editors where behavior issues were 50-50, however he handled the communities attempt to deal with those badly. All in all I agree with Hpvpp --Snowded TALK 07:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always a shame to lose a quality editor. However, no one is multiply blocked and community banned for mild disagreements. Not just talking about PD here, but quality contributions cannot be seen as a license to treat other editors in a manner that drives them away. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not just good content contributors who enjoy abusing other volunteers in disagreements. Losing a quality editor is regrettable, but letting that same editor insult and drive off no telling how many other new editors is far worse. We're having enough troubles attracting new editors as it is. We should make every effort to help editors fit in around here but if after multiple attempts they still can't at least fake civility, there's not much that can be done. It's a collaborative project, first and foremost.
    If you feel he can help the project, feel free to contact him and ask for his advice directly, and take responsibility for any edits made. Otherwise, he's used up his nine lives. A banned editor has been found by the community to be a net negative on the project, and we have enough of those already. Dayewalker (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of disruptive editors who know how to play the game to avoid a community block, while people who do good content work but occasionally get frustrated in consequence get blocked. There were a lot of issues between a small group of editors here, and the idea that anyone has a limited number of lives unless they are purely abusive is very much against the spirit of making this project work --Snowded TALK 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to reopen

    Moved back here from WP:AN/I, since it is not an incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion at WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR is aimed at establishing a project group to investigate the various allegations of the existence of an unhealthy “admin culture” at March 2011 Update. The discussion was closed by User:Iridescent here with summary “enough” and hat-note

    “Peter Damian is well aware of how to contact Arbcom, and more than capable of arguing his own case as and when he chooses to do so. WP:AN is not the place for a broader discussion of the definition of ban v block.”

    This evidences an incorrect understanding of the problem. Specifically, the discussion is

    1- not an attempt to reinstate Peter Damian and
    2- not a discussion of the definition of ban versus block.

    I started the discussion as a result of reading various allegations of the existence of an unhealthy “admin culture” at the talk-page of the March 2011 Update. Since in my opinion this constituted a serious problem, I decided to help contribute toward a solution. Being aware that earlier Peter Damian had come to a comparable conclusion of there being an “admin culture”, I accordingly proposed

    that a project group be formed to investigate the possibility that there are indeed instances of “admin culture” as currently being alleged at the Foundation (as mentioned above) and I further propose that it would be prudent to reinstate Peter Damian and invite him to join that project group.

    The rationale for inviting Peter Damian is

    1- as the saying goes “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer” and
    2- the precedent of the employment of hackers by security firms.

    I attempted dispute resolution by pointing this out to Iridescent here in much the same words as above and requested the closure to be reverted. The response was: “My closure was not "done in haste", and I am not going to revert it. If you want to discuss this further, please email me.”

    Note that the suggestion to discuss the matter by email is improper as it would deny public scrutiny. My response was: “I have no interest in off-the-record dialog. If you are not prepared to keep this open I will lodge a complaint.” However, Iridescent did not engage either point, but instead responded with “I'm not going to force you to cease posting on the matter—however, I strongly advise …” and suggesting that I ask “the user in question”, i.e. Peter Damian, whether he wanted to be unblocked and further that I examine the history of “the user making the allegations”, i.e. User:Moulton.

    Note that I am not particularly interested in Moulton for the simple reason that quite a few other editors have made comparable claims (at the talk-page of March 2011 Update).

    Note also that the use of the verb “to force” by Iridescent carries with it the implicature of having the power to force me to cease posting on the matter. This is tantamount to an implicit threat that it might conceivably be used against me.

    Note in particular that Iridescent has not actually responded to the point of my post, viz. my proposal that a project group be formed to investigate the possibility of any “admin culture”.

    Given that the matter of there being a possible “admin culture” is both very serious and pressing (because of the concurrency of the discussions at the talk-page of the March 2011 Update) I say that my attempt at dispute resolution with Iridescent has failed.

    Consequently, I herewith request that the discussion at WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR be reopened.

    -- Hpvpp (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Beware the boomerang, my son. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Doubt that he'll be unblocked without going to the Arbs personally. Doubt anyone's gonna find any fault with Iridescent for closing the thread or her reply on her talk page. Doubt anything is gonna happen on this thread. ... but WP:RFC is available, as is WP:VP (haven't looked for any Plaxico boomerang issues (are we still using that term?) — Ched :  ?  09:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For BLP reasons, the term WP:BOOMERANG is preferred now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:06, 7 April 2011
    so noted. — Ched :  ?  09:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As Ched says, if you want to request broader comment on an issue WP:RFC is the place to go; if you want to propose a new project WikiProject Council/Proposals is the place to go. Neither the admin noticeboards nor my talkpage are appropriate venues for this discussion.
    Regarding "I am not particularly interested in Moulton for the simple reason that quite a few other editors have made comparable claims (at the talk-page of March 2011 Update)", those "quite a few other editors" all appear either to be Moulton, Moulton's "Caprice" account, and accounts with virtually no edits to en-wiki. The strategy wiki attracts a certain vocal element from across all the 300+ projects operated by the WMF; don't presume that it's representative of English Wikipedia. If you think it is representative, then RFC is the place to find that out.
    Regarding the issue of Peter Damian (and if "the discussion is not an attempt to reinstate Peter Damian", titling your thread "Peter Damian block violates WP:IAR" is an unusual way to show it), as you've now been told by two Arbcom members attempting to get a ban overturned without bothering to consult the banned user in question, any of those involved in the ban discussion, or the arbitration committee, isn't helpful to the banned user, yourself, or Wikipedia as a whole. – iridescent 09:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support the call to look at administrator culture, but not the reversal of any particular decision in the same breath. I may not agree with some of what Hpvpp has to say, but he/she's right about one thing: administrators should be accountable as rational human beings, not immune to scrutiny because they are administrators. Once we're at that pass this community's become a police state. So, have the discussion, here or somewhere else (arguing about venue is ridiculously punctilious when just opposing will do). If Peter Damian and Hpvpp (and I or anyone else in support) are full of shit, their/our words will make that apparent pretty quickly. If not, there's indeed some explaining to do. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 09:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a huge diversity of admins with widely differing viewpoints. Which means it is definitely not a closed loop (and, anyway, mostly stuff gewts decided by a mix of admin/non-admin editors, particularly here) and there is very much a level of accountability (in the sense that, if you have a legitimate complaint at least one admin will likely listen to it). On the other hand if you can present evidence of the alleged problem, then that is another matter. Unfortunately, this "admin accountability" stuff gets raised at regular intervals and, mysteriously, no one has yet taken the time to find evidence and present the problem in anything other than vague accusations. Find a relevant forum, demonstrate a problem; I for one will listn --Errant (chat!) 10:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some sympathy for what you say, Errant, and I think I understand the sense of ennui about vague accusations. But right there is also an indication of what I think is a behaviour pattern: 'Don't bother us here. Find somewhere/anywhere else, but we won't tell you where, and if you get wherever that is, be prepared to hear the same advice again. And don't say anything at all unless it's a specific problem we can solve by the numbers.' I don't think that's really what's meant when talking about a 'culture' of behaviour. All the same, I'm prepared to see this discussion shut down if it doesn't have support, and so far that's how it's shaping up, isn't it? Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 11:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not "don't bother us here", it is me saying that what you propose is a lengthy and probably controversial discussion, which is way way out of scope of this board :) The problem is... what do you expect me (or anyone else here) to actually do. Find a forum? Start a discussion? Try to find a problem? Present evidence? You've built a circular argument in the above comment; i.e. saying there is a problem, but admins reject that there is a problem, and that is the problem... :D So, yes, some specifics would be useful! FWIW I can do the "find a forum?" part of the problem (it was suggested above actually): The village pump would be one venue, or perhaps WT:ADMIN; present the problem as it appears to you, and start an RFC. This is a forum for requesting admin attention into matters needing admin tools/closure/action --Errant (chat!) 11:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear ya. Your excellent wording 'This is a forum for requesting admin attention into matters needing admin tools/closure/action' is almost perfect for the template at the top of the page, which doesn't make that nearly as clear as you just have. Thanks for the forum suggestions too. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 12:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. :) Keep me updated if you do pursue this. I'm definitely willing to be convinced some form of a problem exists. --Errant (chat!) 12:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    My last words.

    • “admin culture” is a problem for Wikipedia, but not of Wikipedia. Raising an RFC would not be appropriate, because the community at large does not have the power to enforce any decision.
    • “admin culture” is a problem for the Foundation, but not of the Foundation. For them to impose an enquiry would not be appropriate, because it would violate WP:IAR.
    • “admin culture” is a problem of the class of admins and the only way it will ever get solved is when the admins reach consensus that they themselves need to do something about it.
      • editors proffering evidence of “admin culture” is not appropriate, because it would polarize the community, both at large and within the class of admins, by drawing an artificial boundary between ‘good’ admins and ‘bad’ admins while ignoring the problem itself. When evidence is needed it would be appropriate for the admins to ask for it.
    • “admin culture” is not a problem for me and I herewith withdraw from the this discussion.

    -- Hpvpp (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I respect your point of view, Hpvpp, but I couldn't disagree more.
    • Administrator 'culture' is necessarily a problem for and of Wikipedia, because we/I speak of it here and now, not somewhere else about something else. The same goes for and of the Foundation, which is indivisible from Wikipedia in this context at this time. Violating 'rules' doesn't come into it, because no rules prevent the free and constructive expression of views aimed at assisting and improving the project.
    • Administrator 'culture' may be 'of' the making of administrators, but a goodly part is about perception by non-administrators; what's missing in the terminology is the meeting ground, which is precisely one of the prerequisites for getting a positive outcome for any discussion along these lines.
    • Editors should not be enjoined to present, or prevented from presenting 'evidence', but I don't see specific issues or witch-hunts as being at all constructive. The problem that emerges is how to talk in generalities to avoid a target-focused conflict, but also making points accepted as having some validity while not requiring immediate and specific interventions. That's the point at which administrators either show some willingness to participate, or not. If no administrators are willing at all to engage on that basis, this discussion is pointless right now, but it is certain that calls for it will recur regularly because a perceived problem has been met with their conspicuous silence.
    • You can't have it both ways, Hpvpp. There is either an administrator 'culture' that is a problem, or there is not. If there is, it's a problem for all Wikipedia contributors, and withdrawing from it is withdrawing from Wikipedia itself.
    • I accept counselling here (and at ANI) that this might not be the correct forum to hold any such discussion, and my comments are made to indicate that I don't choose silence as a response to the last few contributions. The discussion can be conducted now (and somewhere else, if that's appropriate) as a constructive effort, or piecemeal as an ongoing, disjointed and adversarial pain-in-the-arse firefight in various random administrator fora.
    • I must, of necessity, join Hpvpp in withdrawing the current incarnation of this debate, but I am seeking advice on conducting or contributing to a constructive, proactive (I hate that word, but it suits) dialogue on laying to rest any concerns about any pernicious "administrator culture". Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: 1) What's this, PD is socking again, in a blatantly in-our-face way? Yes, of course, block on sight. Sometimes he's had socks contributing acceptable edits quietly, and people have looked the other way, but that's different. 2) I think we have a firm practice of not unblocking people who don't request it. I don't see indication here that he's asked for an unblock. So (unless I missed something) don't even think about unblocking unless he asks. As others have said, he also knows how to contact arbcom. 3) The grounds for banning PD were sound and IMO he should stay banned til hell freezes over (short of a drastic and convincing change of approach on his part). 4) "Admin culture" is actually these days much better than it was a few years ago in my opinion. The worst admins have moved on from the project or been desysopped and the rest have started taking their responsibilities much more seriously. I haven't felt much of an admin culture problem recently. The admins are doing ok give the inherent madness of the surrounding editing culture. 5) I sympathize with some of the complaints PD made, but he (note: refactored) went about it the wrong wrong way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ::'Dude'? 'Sock'? I sign my real name, 'dude'. I hide nothing. If your point was that I have a valid point about 'administrator behaviour' (even if only by herd mentality), thank you. If you want to impugn my name, look me up at home. I'm pretty sure I could convince you that I am not 'PD', and that I am sincere, 'dude'. Did you stop long enough to read that I disagreed with the unbanning proposition of the post? More evidence that there's a culture ... ? Regards — Peter S Strempel | Talk 05:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC) (where people who call other people 'dude' usually end up being bitch-slapped by a (sexy) woman whose name is not 'dude')[reply]

    Sorry for the confusion-- I wasn't referring to you. "Dude" meant PD and "sock" meant "Peter Damian VII". "Dude" thing now rewritten for clarity. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. My mistake. My comments are retracted as per strike-through above. I hope one day to convince you, whether I'm pushing shit up hill or not, that I can see a problem that needs resolving, not by unbanning or banning someone, and not by way of identity fraud, agenda or vendetta. — Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    CSD G5

    Copied across from Village Pump (Policy) - now removed from there. Clarification required: If a user creates and edits an article, and then later gets blocked, does G5 apply or not? If it doesn't, what is it for? I can only see sockpuppetry as surely they can't create an article in their own user name while blocked. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I would support a speedy deletion criteria for articles created within a week of the creating user being blocked. 117Avenue (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    end of copy Peridon (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, G5 is only for pages created in violation of a block/ban. Courcelles 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. While I think on, what is the db-reason thing for if only the various categories of CSD are valid reasons for speedy? It's been puzzling me for a time. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, for G5 blocks/bans aren't applicable to prior contributions, i.e. "ex post facto". And db-reason exists for rare cases when some special case might apply (though, to be honest, every time I've ever needed a custom rationale, it's been with a G6 tag). elektrikSHOOS 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I was right on G5 - declined a G5 speedy on grounds of timing. I used to try db-reason in my earlier days (when the summers were sunny and you could have a good night out with a girl and still have change from a half crown) but always (or almost) got knocked back. Peridon (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The only caveat I'd mention is that the contributions of an editor who is subsequently blocked might be eligible for deletion under other criteria - G3 Hoaxes are always popular, for example. As for db-reason? It's a legacy template, and predates the existing numbered templates ({{db-a7}} and the like). Back in the day, you'd have to say why the article is speedy deletable, just as we have to justify PRODs today. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have once used db-reason, before I was an admin, to get rid of a page I wandered across that contained nothing but an account of the author having sex with his underage brother. Sort of db-ewww really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The one place where G5 arguably should retroactively apply is for a user blocked or banned for copyright violations. There it makes sense, because copyvios can become legal matters, and preemptively deleting it would be good just to stay on the safe side. As to using a db-reason tag; I think I've successfully used it twice, here and here, although today I'd tag them as hoaxes or PROD them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You actually got me curious enough (how the page could have stayed so long undetected) that I checked your deleted contribs to find the page. Eeeeewwwwwww. Big mistake. (It was a user page that apparently slipped past NPP.) T. Canens (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. It might not fit any recognised category, but what the hell was it doing on our servers....Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like that would fall under G3, but I obviously can't see it, so I wouldn't know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm misunderstand a question way up, I'm sorry, but literally, db in the templates is an old historical artefact- it means "delete because"... Courcelles 10:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I did wonder. It was the -reason bit I was actually asking about, not having found much use for it. I think I'd have used db-attack on that page (which I haven't viewed) to get shut quick (now I'd probably delete on that ground and worry about categories later if anyone objected...). Peridon (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

    Resolved
     – closed --Errant (chat!) 14:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thirty days have passed since Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities was initiated. Would an admin close and summarize the RfC? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Timestamp so this will not be archived. Cunard (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Really confused

    I was taking a look at Euro coins which contains a total of 301 files, of that 115 of them are labeled as non-free and 186 that are tagged as free. A full summary of images and their status are at User:Δ/Sandbox 2. Can someone who knows image copyright better than me please take a look and figure this out? I think all the images should be tagged as free or all as non-free. either way I dont think there should be the current mixed bag. ΔT The only constant 13:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Different countries have different rules in relation to their coinage. Thus the "anomaly" may in fact be correct. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    However these are euro coins created by the central banking system, and not local currency. ΔT The only constant 17:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Euro coins are not "created by the central banking system"—I don't know where you've got that idea. Each country mints its own coins; "single currency" means the coins of one country are (for the moment) identical in value with those of the other participants and can be used interchangeably, not that there is literally only a single form of currency. As Mjroots says, each country's coinage will be subject to different copyright laws. – iridescent 22:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The country specific side will in most countries be copyrighted. The other side, which is identical for all countries, appears to be copyrighted by some central european bank. Apparently they licensed them quite freely, but I have my doubts whether their terms are truly compatible with our license. Most images appear to be incorrectly tagged as free based on the central bank license, when in truth country specific copyrights apply. I will also note that none of the images appear to have NFCC rationales for that specific page. In short, it is a total mess. Yoenit (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics. Although it doesn't look active at the moment, if anyone should have the answers it would be someone either associated with it -- or looking at its talk pages because they have an interest in the subject. An issue like this just might spark it back into life. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Site ban proposed for User:Racepacket

    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.
    This hasn't quite had the standard 48 hours for a ban discussion, but I think it's pretty clear there's no consensus in favour of one and further discussion will only be to the detriment of the project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Racepacket has been an incessant disruption to Wikipedia, and I propose he/she be site banned and blocked indefinitely. Here is a list of admin intervention regarding Racepacket in just the past few years:

    2011

    2010

    2009

    2008

    ...

    How many chances should an editor be given, especially one who has edited here since 2006? Racepacket is sapping up community resources (as reported by several different editors), has been given numerous chances (including a comprehensive RfC in 2009), and continues to disrupt Wikipedia. —Eustress talk 17:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're forgetting the current Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2. --Rschen7754 17:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Although to be fair, I've been following that RfC and it doesn't appear to be likely to reach any mutually-satisfactory conclusion, if it manages to reach a conclusion at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, that is correct. --Rschen7754 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there ever been an RfC that reached a satisfactory conclusion? :P — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, several. I admit that RFC/U's are rarely concluded with everyone satisfied, but occasionally it does happen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) To be fair, Racepacket has been a prolific and productive contributor and editor. Where he attracts controversy, I think, is in being bold and in not being as tactful as he ought to be. Eustress is angry because Racepacket suddenly resumed contributing to a low-traffic article, List of Cornell University people, and reversed certain major changes Eustress had made earlier. This looks like it should be a simple case of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, except that instead of "discuss", we're looking at a proposed site ban. Eustress is a good editor and administrator, but this feels like an overreaction to a situation in which Eustress is directly involved. Also, note that several of Racepacket's blocks have been mistaken or inappropriate and were either withdrawn or else overruled by other administrators- this makes the block log look much longer than it really "ought" to be. —Bill Price (nyb) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Bill, you've been a staunch defender of Racepacket, in a way that is uncanny. (You'll be on Wikibreak but somehow manage to come back at times when Racepacket is under scrutiny.) My recent run-in with Racepacket, which I in no way reacted to angrily, served as the impetus for my investigation, and what I found, I believe, overwhelming points to a site ban. There is a big difference between being bold and being disruptive, and Racepacket's run-ins with the dozen editors listed above insist the latter is the case. He is constantly the subject of admin intervention and shows little or no change, despite years of coaching, blocks, and local bans. My opinion is that a site ban is best for the encyclopedia and for the community. —Eustress talk 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I will assume you don't mean to insinuate anything with your first comment, but regardless: declaring a hiatus from major contributions does not prevent me from following my watchlist, and Racepacket's user talk page is included on that watchlist. I've butted heads with him myself before, but he's had my respect as an editor, and some of the blocks and accusations of misconduct he has been on the receiving end of recently have been clearly absurd or exaggerated in my opinion. One of the more bizarre and dogged accusations is that he accused another editor of plagiarism, when the public, easily-viewable record shows that he did no such thing. Seeing nonsense like that has incited me to keep tabs on these issues. —Bill Price (nyb) 21:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not work on his principal recent topic area, nor do I work at GA review. I examined the RfC, and I do not think that the direction it is going is towards a censure or suggested restriction on Racepocket. He seems to have a good deal of support from some other established editors, In that circumstance, a ban of block here would seem entire uncalled for on any GA issue. (I believe that's the only aspect of his work specifically covered by the RfC, though the desired outcome is worded in very general terms.) Given that he has just come off from a long block, another block now without serious evidence of disruption would be costing us a potentially positive area. Even if he is shown to be disruptive, the next step would bea longer block, not a ban. This is unwarranted escalation. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is higher-level than the current RfC issue, and Racepacket has been blocked twice since his indefinite block (which lasted about a month) was lifted. —Eustress talk 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If so, this is not the appropriate place to be having this discussion. "The community" outranks "whichever admins happen to be watching this page". See the "These pages are not the place to raise content disputes or reports of abusive behaviour" at the top of this page? – iridescent 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, AN is a pretty typical place to propose a community ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BAN says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard," which is why I brought it here. —Eustress talk 21:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG, I don't think that Eustress' complaint has anything to do with the GA-driven RFC/U. I'm not convinced that Eustress was even aware of its existence.
    I disagree with your guess at the results. Racepacket has himself proposed editing restrictions that he is willing to accept to resolve the dispute. I believe it highly unlikely that dispute will be resolved without Racepacket accepting editing restrictions. The only questions left seem to be what those restrictions will be, and whether they'll be negotiated at the RFC/U (my preference) or imposed through AN or ArbCom (increasingly likely, as Racepacket's self-proposed editing restrictions have been rejected as insufficient by two prominent disputants, while Racepacket steadfastly refuses to either accept or reject their broader proposal for editing restrictions). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing is right, I was unaware of the GA-related RFC/U until Rschen7754 pointed it out following my initial airing of grievances. (Which reminds me, Seinfeld is great!) —Eustress talk 21:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion is appreciated, but it only reflects an isolated experience. If you will review the track record above, plus the RfC currently in progress, you will find that Racepacket is constantly disrupting the community. We can continue to pursue topic ban after topic ban, interaction ban after interaction ban, but we will waste precious community time in the process. I myself am not a perfect editor, and I am inclined to coach other editors to help them become great, but Racepacket has had lots of chances and the destructive disruption continues. —Eustress talk 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask, how many stops are there? I believe this is a very fair proposition given the numerous chances extended to Racepacket and the continuation of the disruptive behavior. —Eustress talk 02:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes there are some issues, hopefully the RFCU will find some solutions less drastic than a site ban, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. This looks premature given that RfC/U has been initiated just a week ago. Is this a two-pronged approach (or forum shopping?) to really get someone with good contributions banned from the site? Also, I found that some of the "evidence" (the word "evidence" in quotes because I found indications to dispute them) were cherry-picked in favour of advocating User:Eustress's views. The first two bulleted points explained two blocks in 2011. Eustress said Racepacket was "Blocked for one month for disruptive editing by User:Ironholds" and "Blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing by User:Hawkeye7". The 48 hours block from Hawkeye7 was found to have violated WP:INVOLVED and the block was rescinded by Ironholds, who immediately slapped a month long block on Racepacket for sockpuppetry because User:LauraHale, so-called "uninvolved party" according to the ongoing RfC/U, suspected that Racepacket engaged in block-evasion through IP.[1] Another admin demonstrated technical evidence that Racepacket could not be socking because the IP has already been identified as a sock of an unrelated sockmaster. Therefore, in my opinion, the first two 2011 block "evidence" should get a big strike line right through the middle because those are blatant blocking errors made by block-happy admins. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you- I tried to point this issue out earlier, but compared to you, I was very unspecific and ineloquent. —Bill Price (nyb) 05:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, Eustress was unaware of the second RFC when he started this section. --Rschen7754 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bill Price" I was watching this case since it started in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles but I can't keep my silence anymore because people are now on a witch-hunt against good reviewers who stand firm and refuse to pass a sub-par GA without significant improvements. @all: Ok, I found one more blocking error. This one was listed under the 2010 heading and Eustress said "Blocked by User:Eustress for edit warring". After a click away, I landed on this page[2] where Eustress himself was caught violating WP:INVOLVED. Now this one Eustress has to know because he's the one who administered the block. I don't have time until tomorrow to examine other claims made by Eustress but I suspect some of them may not hold up to scrutiny. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand the issues. Racepacket has done some good reviews. I hold my GA reviews to the highest standard, for one, and I've quite frequently talked to reviewers who blindly pass USRD articles when the article clearly wasn't at GA standards. It's the manner in which Racepacket acts when he makes a mistake in the review; he always assumes he's right, regardless of whether he is or not. --Rschen7754 06:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose for now (without prejudice). There is clearly a problem here as I am fully aware of filing the RFC. However, I don't think we've reached the point of "exhausted the patience of the community." If Racepacket is not willing to listen to criticism, then we may wind up back here, but for now, this isn't the time. --Rschen7754 06:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose: I strongly oppose this ban. Racepacket is one of the elite contributors of Wikipedia. He has made plenty of good faith edits and created more than 180 articles. I'm not judging mindset of proposer, but this is very harsh to appeal for this type of ban. I don't know much about previous bans on racepacket, but recent accusation made on him, regarding his review of Netball was completely baseless and tactless. Bill william comptonTalk 08:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Is he trouble? Yes. Is he more trouble than he's worth? Not really. There is much room for improvement, but I prefer bans only for people that a) use sockpuppets and b) primarily cause damage. Without "a", a ban has little benefit over a block. Without "b" incremental blocks are preferable to throwing the kitchen sink at the person. I don't see "a" at all here, and "b" is questionable at best at this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bot edits

    Can someone explain to me the benefit to the system of a bot making changes such as this? I mean, I guess I can see them as just generally tidying up for the sake fo tidying up, but if {{WPNYC}} and {{WikiProject New York City}}, or {{WPBS}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} are functionally equivalent, what is the reason for changing the former in each pair to the latter? Are the resources used by making such edits justified by whatever savings they provide -- indeed, are there any savings?

    If a human editor was making such edits I'd be tempted to say they were just churning up their edit count, but with as bot... Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it has to do with the first parameter of the template must start with 1= in order to avoid parameter confusion. ΔT The only constant 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiProjectBannerShell used to require the "1=" parameter, but I don't believe it does anymore. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion on VPT a while back dealt with the resources used in template redirects, if I recall correctly. The end result was the techies telling us regular joes that template redirects take up effectively zero resources, just like other redirects. So, no, there aren't really any resource savings in these edits. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you contact the botop before coming here? T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am here. If the 1= parameter is missing an AWB plugin stucks when processing the page. There has been discussion in the past. I periodically do some edit to add the parameter until we fix the bug. Take note that WPBS uses a mixture of named and unnamed parameters. An extra pipe may cause problems to the template too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that explanation, which doesn't, however, cover why WPNYC is being changed to Wikiproject New York City, or why other similar edits, where no parameter is being added, are being made. In any case my comment was a general one, about what appeared to me to be unnecessary bot edits, which is why I didn't frame it as a Yobot issue -- that just happened to be the edit that caught my eye at this moment, so I used it for an example. I see other bots making other kinds of edits which look to me to be unnecessary as well. I'm more than willing to be shown to be wrong, and I'm not accusing anyone of any kind of malfeasance or misconduct. I'm genuinely curious about whether these edits are, in general, a net plus or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've encountered this issue as well, a bot went through and changed all of the {{WPFOOD}} tags to the longer {{WikiProject Food and Drink}} without explanation--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    Blacklisted title page

    I have tried to create a redirect page from 'Bushman art' to 'Rock art', but a tag pops up telling me that the title is blacklisted and requires the intervention of an administrator. Androstachys (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I think now that the page is created, you can edit it yourself, so if you want to modify the redirect to a specific section or something, you should be able to now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you - can you supply some details as to what exactly led to a blacklisting and why? cheers Androstachys (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I really have no idea; I don't know much about title blacklists or edit filters, I just know I have a magic wand that lets me create pages non-admins can't. If I had to guess I'd say some troublemaker in the past had a habit of creating pages with "bushman" in the title somehow, but it's only a guess. If you're curious, you could ask at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist, which appears to be populated by people who (unlike me) know what they're talking about (assuming it was the title blacklist, and not some other filter of some kind). --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the blacklist, and I can't spot which line is causing this problem. Some other filter in other place probably believes that you are using a misspelling of "Cock". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like paranoia hitting WP....Androstachys (talk) 21:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I just deleted the page and tried reproducing the error with my (non-admin) alternate account. I had no problem creating the page at all. T. Canens II (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty certain that some tweaking was done in the 12-hour period before your test. Androstachys (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for hist-merge: TriMedia

    Resolved

    Graham87 13:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Back in 2008, someone did a cut-and-paste move of TriMedia to TriMedia (Mediaprocessor). Both have multi-user edit histories, so the result is a copyvio. Can someone history-merge the two back together, ideally with TriMedia (mediaprocessor) (lowercase m) as the final name. 91.125.65.44 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, thanks for letting us know. Graham87 13:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Due to possible confusion with titles (see Trimedia International), we might want a disambig at TriMedia. I've added a hatnote to TriMedia (mediaprocessor) for now, but I don't like the solution. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur, so I've made TriMedia a disambig. The name is also used by the producers of Bitag. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Two different pages for General Richard Marshall

    Hello. This is my first time using the Admin noticeboard, so please bear with me. There are currently two pages for General Richard Marshall: "Richard_J._Marshall" and "Richard_Marshall_(American_general)". They both appear to have the same information. However, if you search for "Richard Marshall" only the "Richard_Marshall_(American_general)" page appears in the search results. I attempted to place a redirect on the "Richard_J._Marshall" page, and I received a message stating that I should post a request here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glumpist (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard J. Marshall is already a redirect to Richard Marshall (American general). - David Biddulph (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You can confirm that by clicking on Richard J. Marshall, and then at the top of the "Richard Marshall (American general)" page it says "(Redirected from Richard J. Marshall)". - David Biddulph (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC closure

    Could someone please take a look at Kraft Dinner and close that RfC? I am involved in it and it would be improper for me to do so. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please create page: "FCC Commissioner"

    Resolved
     –  Done as requested. –xenotalk 19:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried to create an article called "FCC Commissioner", but it was restricted to creation by Administrators only. Would one of you please create the article, and insert the below REDIRECT text:

    1. REDIRECT[[3]]


    (Note that I have NOT used any "nowiki" coding, so you will have to look at the text in the editor mode.)

    Tanks, LP-mn (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    p.s.: Please note the singular term, I intentionally did NOT type "FCC Commssioners".
    FYI: The correct syntax for redirects requires a wikilink rather than a URL, so this one becomes #REDIRECT [[Federal Communications Commission#Current chairperson and commissioners]]. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Catholic schools in New York

    List of Catholic schools in New York contains a lot of redlinks/no-links. Not having articles for them, what is the value (not to mention notability) of these? Ok, schools are not speedy material, but why should there be such a list, when many/most have no article and are probably private/for profit businesses anyway? Should it stay, or most of them go? I'd prefer some consensus before doing the work, or at least somebody telling my why not to go ahead and be bold. -- Alexf(talk) 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    the accepted practice is that individual elementary and secondary schools, public and private, religious or non-religious, are merged or redirected into a list of combination article. For private schools it's normally the place; for US public schools it's normally the school district; for Catholic schools it's normally the diocese. New York State is too large --the list needs to be subdivided. But many of the schools there are high schools, and they normally every one of them should have an article. Its just the common practice, not a formal guideline, but it's been almost 100% consistent for several years, which is more than I can say about most formal guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    abusive administrator activity

    How might we find help with handling a problem with an administrator who has been issuing excessive unwarranted blocks on users and ip computer addresses to effectively curtal any effort made to contribute to a particular subject area on the site? There is no way for anyone to improve the articles or create new, related articles without having their work reverted or deleted outright. The administrator has been actively tracking this specific subject /topic area for years, continuously using assertions and claims of "banned user" activity to justify their questionable actions. It would be nice to solve this situation. Please advise! Desertdiscs (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC) User's first edit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll need to name the administrator, and give diffs for examples of the "questionable actions". WP:ANI is the more appropriate location for such a report, and remember to notify the administrator concerned. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, you'll have to name the admin concerned. Unless you're a sockpuppet of a banned user, in which case don't bother. Mjroots (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    okay thank you. I'm not "screaming" about admin abuse by any means, I am just trying to find a solution to a legitimate problem. I'm not a puppet for a banned user, nor am I a banned user myself. As I stated before, the problem centers around the extreme misuse/overuse of "banned user" claims to justify user/comp.address blocks, and thus, the removal of any+all associated content without question. Is there any branch of wiki administration that offers more direct oversight and review of issues if necessary?64.255.164.34 (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=423024973"