Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cunard (talk | contribs) at 04:43, 28 November 2011 (→User:Lagoo sab community ban proposal: more transparent closing template; added closer's signature for transparency). 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


    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

      Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

      Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

      Technical instructions for closers

      Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      information Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

      (Initiated 101 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPathtalk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPathtalk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fear I gave the wrong impression. My health is in no jeopardy whatsoever, I just have intractable problems with fatigue and focus that frequently keep me from doing the things I want and intend. I appreciate your concern, though. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

      (Initiated 96 days ago on 14 August 2024)

      Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:One_Direction#RfC: Band status and members in the infobox

      (Initiated 31 days ago on 18 October 2024) Expired today, last comment was three weeks ago. The consensus on this RfC appears to lean one way among the participants, but because of the high-profile and contentious nature of the change under discussion, I think an uninvolved editor should close. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
      CfD 0 0 0 35 35
      TfD 0 0 0 3 3
      MfD 0 0 0 5 5
      FfD 0 0 0 2 2
      RfD 0 0 5 60 65
      AfD 0 0 0 1 1

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Done —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

      (Initiated 307 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction

      It appears that Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs) does not feel that the restriction listed at WP:RESTRICT prohibiting him from making cosmetic changes to wikicode has legitimacy, and at least one administrator feels that this restriction should not be enforced as listed [1]. The restriction was implemented following this discussion and is reproduced below for ease-of-reference:

      Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged. Sanction imposed per this AN discussion, to be enforced by escalating blocks

      Was this restriction duly imposed and should it remain in effect? –xenotalk 14:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Xeno, you are conflating two issues. Whether "one administrator feels that this restriction should not be enforced as listed" is not at issue. At least one administrator feels that you are not uninvolved.
      And really I would much rather discuss this issue when I have time to spend on it, and would raise it then.
      Rich Farmbrough, 14:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC).
      The purpose of this thread is to explore whether the editing restrictions are in force and thus should be enforced. It will clarify to you whether you should be adhering to the restrictions, or ignoring them as you have been.
      If you want to explore the issue of whether I am wp:involved, and whether User:Fences and windows should have unblocked on that premise, then initiate a separate thread. –xenotalk 14:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      OK I had missed the details other than the involved admin part

      ... the violations linked to above are trivial and all edits involved other changes. Blocking for capitalisation changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} is punitive and provides no benefit to the encyclopedia. Fences&Windows 02:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

      Thanks for pointing that out. Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC).

      Responding to the main question. R.F. has a history of violating our norms for large-scale editing (both by bots and on his main account) by making changes that impose his personal style preferences on articles (e.g. this bot edit [2] with a misleading edit summary). The history of problems can be seen in his block log and the block log for his bot SmackBot which was renamed to Helpful Pixie Bot. In general there is no reason that an editor would make cosmetic changes to a page that don't affect its rendering, particularly on a large-scale basis, so the edit restriction would not even affect an editor who is following our best practices. The reason for the restriction is that R.F. has continued to do so even when editors complain or warn him there is no consensus for the changes he is making. For this reason, edit restrictions are, unfortunately, necessary. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Two comments. 1) I feel you (Xeno) are misrepresenting the unblocking admin (Fences and windows) when you say that he feels the "restriction should not be enforced" – he unblocked because he felt you were involved and that the block was punitive. 2) Reading over the restriction, I do not see a consensus – rather the closing admin deciding "This Gordian knot clearly needs cutting, and I hereby cut it: the restriction proposed above is enacted" with seemingly no regard as to what the actual consensus is. Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • He could have made a thread on AN or ANI, for example. By a somewhat distant analogy: once you pay a parking ticket, it's too late to go back and complain that ticket was wrong. R.F. was already blocked in September under one of the restrictions, months after they were enacted, and there is no sign he tried to have either of the restriction removed. If he thought they did not have consensus, it would not make sense for him to let them go unchallenged. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The unblocking admin wrote that "Blocking for capitalisation changes from {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}} is punitive and provides no benefit to the encyclopedia" - this reads to me like they believe Rich should not be blocked for such cosmetic changes despite the editing restriction prohibiting him from doing so. –xenotalk 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Regarding your interpretation, perhaps you are correct (I would not speak for Fences and Windows). For some reason, the impression I got from your opening statement was that you thought that F&W had unblocked because they disagreed with the restrictions (on re-reading your statement, I probably read too much into it). IMO, the main reason for unblocking appeared to be because F&W thought you were involved – what F&W thinks of the restrictions appears to be a side note. Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that the restriction remained on WP:Editing restrictions is evidence that there was consensus for it, as it would have been removed otherwise. R.F. knew that the restriction was enacted, but did not work to try to have it it removed. He was blocked under it for a week in September 2011, and the block was not overturned early. It appears from R.F.'s actions that he accepted the restriction as valid. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          Who would it be removed by? Are there actually editors who watch that page and make sure that the referenced discussions at AN and ANI have been closed correctly (i.e. that the consensus was interpreted correctly)? Half of Xeno's question when starting this thread is "Was this restriction duly imposed". Is your answer to that honestly 'yes, because it is still listed at WP:Editing restrictions'? That does not actually answer the question. Also, have you recently read the AN discussion that is linked? I just read it again and I cannot see any consensus. But I am just a lowly editor, so perhaps you could explain to me why Rd232's closure was a correct reading of the consensus? Jenks24 (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          I believe that block was for his other editing restriction. –xenotalk 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the logic here is simple. The edits in question aren't helpful, and they are sometimes disruptive. Thus the injunction imposed is logical and sensible. Rklawton (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - looking at the lnked edits, each of them, I believe, is changing the order/locations of the footnote markers, which isn't a cosmetic change to the wikitext; additionally, since he did the edits using AWB, several other cosmetic changes happened in accordence with the explicit exception listed. I don't think that him changing the "r" at the beginning of a {{references}} between upper and lower case, as part of a relevant edit, is harmful - but I believe that it isn't part of the automatic AWB corrections, which would make it a violation of the ban. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support The restrictions and Xenos block. Obviously this was not a punitive block as I just saw this on my watchlist this morning [3]. There only changes were cosmetic. It shows a change, in red, but they look identical. I see no visual difference between either version of the page.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      If people wonder why we have such restrictions: Rich Farmbrough is currently changin a lot of Ice hockey player articles, based on a discussion at the Wikiproject talk page. Similarly to the issues that lead to hiw restrictions, he is again becomeing sloppy. This is an example of what he attempts to do (note: these changes alter nothing in the appearance of the page). Among the last ten such edits are again two examples where he introduces errors thoughn in this one he changes [[Shot (ice hockey)|shots]] to [[Shot (ice hockey)|shootss]] (apparently a script that changes "|shot" to "|shoots" gone wrong in the body of the article), and in this one he changes in a citebook template |location=Toronto |id=ISBN 0-385-25999-9 to |location=Toronto ISBN= 0-385-25999-9; the original gave a good looking result in the references, the new one is a lot worse.

      These are not huge errors, but considering that the improvements of the infobox changes are minimal (next to non-existent), the end result is hardly making the encyclopedia better. Fram (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      To be fair the hockey ones will result in a change on the page. We are streamlining the code in the infobox and currently support the old version and the new version so that there was no loss displayed data. Once we strip out the old code if he did not make those changes the information would stop displaying. Referring to the first link you provide. The second one I have no comment on. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, so the infobox changes are useful, but how he does them and what he attempts to change otherwise is too often problematic, which is exactly why he got restrictions in the first place. Fram (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh I agree I have previously agreed with his restrictions. Was just pointing out the reasoning for the first one. I believe he was probably testing for a Bot Request he has in on it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair they'll only result in a change if they're in use, edits like this [4] where he's removing 2 fields not in use and changing capitalization have absolutely no bearing on proposed template changes, or page rendering.--Crossmr (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      People have had time to chew this over, and I don't really see anyone objecting to his restrictions here, nor any strong objections that these kinds of edits fall under his restrictions. And yet, Rich continues to make edits like this [5]. These changes have no visual meaning, nor do they have any meaning for future code versions of the template. Now do we have any uninvolved admins who can actually enforced the communities agreed upon editing restrictions?--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I'll do it if we really are all wrapped up on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm still waiting for CBM (or anyone, really) to answer my questions above. Also, I'd at least like to see Rich given the chance to explain the diffs that Crossmr has provided. Jenks24 (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The question "who would it be removed by"? I can say that if someone randomly placed an editing restriction against me, and I didn't think it had consensus, I would just post at ANI and let someone remove it if it didn't actually have consensus. Indeed if this discussion shows there is not consensus for the restriction then someone will remove it. In the end, the main test for consensus is whether an edit sticks. The particular edit that recorded the restrictions does seem to have stuck. R.F. was well aware of it, so he had ample opportunity to appeal if he thought the edit was wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps I am not as enamoured of process as you. Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
      As Rich has indicated above, he doesn't have time to discuss it now, because he's apparently far to busy making these edits rather than discuss them, which is all the more reason he needs to be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      You would enforce an apparent ER without (a) satisfying yourself that it was properly imposed and (b) checking that the edits violated it? Interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 12:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC).
      • Comment - I think capitalising template names in template calls is something that stock AWB can do, and therefore has nothing to do with the restrictions anyway? Deryck C. 09:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But he is doing "AWB" runs which change templates in a non-AWB manner, e.g. changing <references/> to {{Reflist}}[6][7]. No idea why he is piping links in the Persondata template, it's a rather useless waste of space[8][9]. And I thought the reordering of refs had been objected to?[10] Fram (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          1. What's with the snarky quote marks around "AWB"?
          2. <references/> is not a template, it is deprecated and incorrect markup.
          3. I share your opinion on piped links in {{Persondata}}, it is however not a big deal, and standard AWB
          4. Correctly ordering refs is standard AWB.
        • So basically just the same modus operandi. Throw enough mud, maybe something will stick? Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because your "AWB" edits often are not really comparable to what AWB usually does? E.g. your last AWB edit removes a section, still tags it as minor, and doesn't do what the edit summary describes, i.e. put the removed text on the talk page. That's not an AWB error of course, it's your problem. Reordering refs is indeed an AWB feature, so that's no problem. Piped info in persondata as well, I'll start a discussion on the AWB page. Where's your evidence though that "references/" is "deprecated and incorrect markup"? Pages like Help:Footnotes treat it as if it is perfectly acceptable, and it is not a standard AWB feature to replace it with "reflist". Long discussions indicated that there is no consensus to replace "references/". In fact, this edit is given as an example edit of what AWB will do in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. Fram (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you don't know why that's malformed, go and read one of our pages on mark-up languages. And we should keep mark-up as simple as possible.
            • Well of course AWB doesn't paste it to the talk page. I have to save the edit, switch to a browser and do that manually, possibly on a different machine. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC).
              • Which in both cases totally misses the point. The first one is supported on Wikipedia (in fact, reflist is only given as an alternative to it, not as the accepted and wanted replacement), and you shouldn't impose your preference over other accepted methods, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. And the problem with the AWB edit was a) that it definitely wasn't a "minor edit", and b) that you didn't follow it up and so used an incorrect edit summary. Like I said, "That's not an AWB error of course, it's your problem." Fram (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • And please correct your edit summary when you start making more AWB edits[11][12][13]. Fram (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re Deryck C.: The restriction is to the things that are built into stock AWB. In principle AWB could be programmed to do anything, and it is very extensible; one issue with R.F.'s edits has been things that he wrote to add to AWB. The list of things built into AWB is at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes. Capitalizing template calls (e.g. {{reflist}} to {{Reflist}}) is not listed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      So again, anyone willing to enact the editing restrictions? He continues to make further useless edits such as this [14] and has provided no explanation for them. Capitalization and removing fields not in use is clearly a violation of his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      My sense is that the hockey player ones were discussed, to some extent, at the talk page for that infobox. Thus they are not a bright line violation of the restrictions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed - though those edits have rather low value, the task arguably meets the test of 'demonstrable consensus'. –xenotalk 13:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CONSENSUS, a local consensus cannot override a larger one. A local consensus on a particular article/template/etc page wouldn't override the community imposed editing restrictions. There doesn't seem to be anything in his quoted restriction above making an allowance for it either. That said, he is not editing per the discussion on the talk page either. There is really only a proposal from one person with a couple comments, none of which really are addressing the edits Rich is making in my above examples, and then Rich steps in and starts doing it. Even still in the proposal, it suggests change shot to shoots. It does not say "if shoots already exists, remove redundant unused fields and perform unnecessary capitalization.". The request was more or less created by Rich himself as far as I can tell. He can't go out and create a request to get around his editing restrictions. I highly suggest people take a far more detailed look at how these edits have come about.--Crossmr (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It is borderline, but it's better to let him be once too many than to block him once too many. Either he will no longer make more blatant violations of his restrictions, and then the restrictions have basically worked (finally), or he will make more blatant violations, and then is the time to block him again. For now, I suggest lettng him continue with the Ice Hockey infobox edits (if they aren't finished yet), but to indicate to him that he is not allowed to make a number of other changes (template capitalization, changing references/ to reflist, ...), either separately or combined with such edits, unless there is clear consensus for such changes as well. Standard AWB changes are of course allowed to be combined with these edits. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see anything borderline about it. He's taken it upon himself to perform edits which are not part of the proposal, which did not come from a consensus generating discussion, and which clearly violate his editing restrictions. Where is the borderline here?--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      One would think that removing deprecated fields would be implied in a request to update the infoboxes on pages to the new code being used. I know I certainly would want the old fields removed to not confuse future editors. While I have in the past very much thought he crossed some lines in regards to his restrictions, at this point I think you are just picking at him. The capitalization he probably shouldn't do though since he is restricted from it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I also agree that with his past edits aside he is doing the Ice hockey editgs at the request of that project and that project should be watching to make sure that problems are fixed. I also agree that removing deprecated parameters is a very good thing even if the removal of them does not render a change to the page. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If the field was in use, I would certainly agree that removing them was the appropriate thing to do. That is what he is supposed to be doing. However, if the fields aren't in use, there is no benefit from going through and removing them. They're just like any other unused field in a template. No one on the template talk requested he do that. It was only requested that field names be changed. It was Rich's choice to go ahead and remove these fields, which is something he's had issues with in the past. Since he's not actually updating fields on these articles, the net result is that he's doing nothing to the page render. And DJ Sasso if you agree he shouldn't be doing that capitalization, and he is, I'm not really being that picky am I?--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I agree with some of the arguments against him and think that some of the casing changes are a bit dubious I strongly disagree that leaving a deprecated parameter makes no difference. It encourages new users to fill the data in and then it adds to confusion about why its not working. Leaving deprecated parameters whether populated or not is just a bad practice akin to leaving empty beer cans around the kitchen in our homes. We wouldn't do this there we shouldn't do it here either. --Kumioko (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an extremely rare case, and I don't find it likely that with an existing field listing those values that a new user would go in and start trying to fill out the same information in another field. If other useful edits are taking place on the page and those fields are removed at the time, fine. But as it is, Rich is doing the same thing he's always been doing here, at no one's request but his own.--Crossmr (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Argument problems

      I added this as a subsection to not confuse it with the ongoing discussion. Aside from the issues with Rich's edits in the discussion there seems to be a lot of sloppiness in the accusations against him. I find it a little troublesome that in multiple cases in this discussion I have seen edits blaming Rich for violating a rule that the accuser either doesn't understand or is choosing to interpret in a way hat misrepresents the problem. If we are going to accuse a member of violating the policy we need to ensure that our accusations aren't themselves "sloppy". --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      After reading this whole conversation, I have become convinced that the editing restrictions are more trouble than they're worth and should be dropped. I'm really not seeing a benefit to the 'pedia in keeping these restrictions active. 28bytes (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Please also reread the discussions that lead to the restrictions in the first place. The benefit to the encyclopedia is that with the restrictions, we have much less problems with Rich Farmbrough making error after error (e.g. with rapid page or category creations), and with Rich Farmbrough misusing some cleanup task to impose his own preference in hundreds or thousands of articles (e.g. changing the capitalisation of the parameters in the persondata template against the general consensus, or changing the capitalisation of templates like citeweb and citenews, or adding or removing spaces in headers), often coupled with more errors. See e.g. User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011Oct#Please don't change correct links to redirects (or worse, to redlinks), don't "correct" quotes, and don't remove the end of lines: he changes hundreds of cases of U.S. to US (to be MOS compliant), but didn't check his edits very thoroughly, revealing a number of serious errors after a cursory glance at them. What's the point of making a minor change that doesn't add anything to the meaning of a page but makes it slightly more MOS compliant, if at the same time you change bluelinks to redlinks, thereby making the article worse? Fram (talk) 08:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Compare e.g., from the same run of US-corrections, the version pre-Richard Farmbrough[15] and the version post-Richard Farmbrough[16]. Scroll both times down to "Selected recorded music reviews" to get an idea of the difference. It was corrected ten days later by another editor. Fram (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, those edits you link to are undeniably bad. But it's not clear to me that those obviously bad edits are what editing restriction is targeting. If we're going to crack down on something, I would rather it be the harmful/page-breaking edits than the cosmetic ones. 28bytes (talk) 09:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no objection against any improved editing restrictions which reduce the level of errors (and unnecessary or unwanted changes) further while keeping the possibility for Rich Farmbrough to do useful gnoming or repetitive work anyway. For the moment, the current restrictions are the best method to, if not eliminate, at least minimize the re-emergence of earlier problems. Fram (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems to me that the problem with the current restriction is that it does nothing to curb the problematic edits like the ones you linked to, while generating much needless noticeboard drama about harmless (if pointless) cosmetic edits. A worthwhile restriction would do precisely the opposite. 28bytes (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Many people objected to his unending pointless cosmetic changes. that is why the restrictions came about.--Crossmr (talk) 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Special:DoubleRedirects

      Could someone please process entries left? Bots cannot handle them as pages either form redirect loops (or redirect to self) or are protected preventing bot fixes. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

      Any redirects in particular? I don't see any mainspace redirects on that list that haven't already been fixed. 28bytes (talk) 07:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Userspace ones in particular needs fixation. We do not need any of these really. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 18:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
      OK, I see them now. Doing... 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've fixed the obvious errors (user talk self-redirects). The others appear to be either intentional redirect testing in userspace or .js pages, both of which I'm reluctant to fool with unless the users specifically request it. 28bytes (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      You can get rid of the js/css safely, I believe. They came from renames. T. Canens (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not the right wiki to test these. Test.wikipedia is the address. I don't see why one needs to test this on wikipedia anyways. It is a hog on bot-time and clutters the finite slots of the double redirect log. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
      I cleaned out a couple dozen but that's all I have time for tonight. Hopefully another admin can pitch in and clear out the rest. 28bytes (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The ones that are left are mainly respected users (and admins?), who could have a note dropped - and are loops. Wikipedia:Example of a double redirect I'm not sure about. Clearly it has documentary value, and is not a loop. I'd be inclined to leave it. Test.wikipedia can be useful for testing, however be aware that it for a specific type of testing that may not be what you have in mind. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      (I left messages on the ones I didn't delete G2.) Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

      User:Lagoo sab community ban proposal

      Ok, discussion has been ongoing for over a week, I think we can safely say this person is community banned by consensus. Night Ranger (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Lagoo Sab is not formally banned at this point, but he needs to be. Let me outline the reasons:

      • See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lagoo sab/Archive for a long long list of puppets.
      • He has been blocked under different names many different times for non-socking reasons: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22], and possibly [23] . Suffice to say, this user is incapable of editing properly under any screenname.
      • Under the different sock accounts, it is a habit of his to accuse everyone else of socking and talk about it like it's a horrible thing. And yet, ironically, he is the one who does all the socking (the checkusers show up negative). Lagoo sab is not able to even understand the basic concept of "it's just as bad when I do it as when someone else does it."
      • The user is unrepentant, and in fact thinks it is his right to be unblocked. See our recent conversation at one of his talk pages where he makes up excuses for why he socked (which don't hold water), consistently refuses to listen to reason (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and even goes on some inexplicable rant about having lots of girlfriends and money as an excuse for why he should be able to edit like this.

      I ask for a ban so that he can be reverted on sight. I do not believe this user will ever be capable of editing on Wikipedia, especially while he still refuses to ever see wrong in his own doing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Philosopher, there seems to be some disagreement over whether de facto is also official as regards WP:BAN. I know this has come up in the past... WP:BAN is pretty clear regarding how someone can end up banned. However, Ryulong has agreed to discuss and clarify this at the BAN talk page. Night Ranger (talk) 05:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      RPP backlog

      There is another backlog at WP:RPP waiting for every admin that sees this :) .Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      AIV backlog

      We've also got a (small) backlog at WP:AIV.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Fernando Rivas

      http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fernando_Rivas&action=historysubmit&diff=462357078&oldid=462026854

      The subject or rep of the subject is editing his article. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Admitted sock needs a drawer to put them in

      See User talk:Arjun Barwal. If anyone recognizes the nature of the disruption (a form of slamming to a shock-site); the user who did this admits to being a sock, but I can't place them in a drawer. If anyone can help connect the dots, perhaps we can start a WP:SPI report and/or dig out any sleeper socks. The edit-filter hit that brought down the block is here: [24]. --Jayron32 18:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      The target of the shortened URL is something with 'meepsheep' in it. Looking at the SPI archive it seems that one of their nameing schemata is Indian names. Is this the drawer you were looking for? If not, I also remember Grawp doing some vandalism in that vein. ~Alison C. (aka Crazytales) 17:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The two blocked accounts were on open proxies, so I'm sure whoever it is has hopped to another one by now. –MuZemike 00:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Ginsberg's theorem#RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?

      Would someone close Talk:Ginsberg's theorem#RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?? The bot's removal of the RfC tag somehow escaped my notice. Goodvac (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Mobile editing block

      I've been asked to refer an open proxy unblock request here for discussion (Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies/Unblock#80.239.242.0.2F23). I've also placed an {{unblock}} request on the page of the IP address itself.

      The history is this is an IP that was originally blocked on enwp back in 2009 for five years on the grounds that it was an "open proxy". I've no idea whether it is still an open proxy or not. There is no recent history of vandalism (indeed no history at all according to the contributions page, although there may be some oversighted edits that I can't see). It's used on mobile phones for editing, so I think there could be quite a strong argument on inclusion grounds that we should allow editing from this IP. Should it be unblocked? AndrewRT(Talk) 23:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I remember now. Anyone, including our many banned editors, can pop along to the demo version on the web and continue editing, as I just did with 80.239.243.46 (talk · contribs). Yes, that would qualify it as an open proxy. I also remember much previous discussion about getting its XFF headers, but I'm hoping someone else will know what's occurred about that. It could be a more limited range that's assigned to the demo version. I'm hoping someone will know more about this range than me. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      New Tool For Admins: File Swapping

      Hi all. I'd like to introduce a new, revolutionary bot task to the community! Have you ever had the problem where you've had to replace one image with hundreds of image links with another image? Have you ever had to orphan a file redirect with an excess of links? If you've ever had either of those problems, they'll trouble you no more; I'd like to introduce Fbot task #10, a bot which will swap the usages of one file for another on request by any administrator! It's easy to request a swap. Simply go to User:Fbot/Replace, follow the administrator instructions, and you're good to go. The bot will complete your request within 48 hours. While Fbot #10 is currently in trial, it is fully functional, and ready for use. Presently, requests may be made by any autoconfirmed user, as Fbot 10 is still in trial. That said, for the duration of the trial period, all requests will be manually checked before being submitted to the bot, and inappropriate requests will be promptly removed. Once the trial is over, requests will be limited to administrators only, and non-admins may request swaps here. Happy swapping! FASTILY (TALK) 00:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

      (Moved to AN/I [25], since it concerns a specific incident. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      I can't find a clue

      Your appeal photo from Brandon Harris is freaky, frightening and scary.

      And your process for contacting you is so complicated I wonder if anyone will ever see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.131.168.208 (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Huh? --Jayron32 06:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      A photo of Brandon Harris is featured in this year's fundraising appeals for the Wikimedia Foundation. Graham87 09:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Poor Brandon. — Joseph Fox 11:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I've replied at User_talk:173.131.168.208 AndrewRT(Talk) 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      De Facto bans, possible amendment to the BAN policy

      There's a discussion going on here [26] regarding the banning policy and particularly WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Please drop by and join in the discussion. Night Ranger (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Move needed

      Recently created Cancer research institute is about the specific Cancer Research Institute (cpitalized). Title was protected in 2007. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

       Not done: article speedied. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Edit notice requests

      Today, I discovered that when Template:Editnotices/Page/Kamen Rider W was moved, several redirects to it (to save time in not making identical editnotices for other pages) were speedily deleted because they were at the time broken redirects. Rather than restoring these (as some other pages were moved), and because I would like additional uses of the edit notice on newer pages, I would redirects to the aforementioned template set up at the following pages as to save time and effort in making identical templates:

      Thank you.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... --RA (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Regards, --RA (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Selective deletion request

      Would someone please have the garbage in the history of User talk:Jasper Deng/Nonconfirmed selectively deleted? I don't want good faith IPs to see that.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

       Done --Jayron32 04:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

      An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      • All articles related to the subject of Abortion:
      1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
      2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
      3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

      In addition:

      1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
      2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
      3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
      4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
      5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

      For the Arbitration Committee,
      - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Possible AFD trolling

      User:Katarighe a.k.a. Mohamed Aden Ighe has been voting for a disproportionate number of AFD nominations sequentially for 11/28/2011, and that's only today! Is this considered trolling?? Quis separabit? 04:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=462846478"