Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.155.141.125 (talk) at 19:31, 12 June 2012 (→‎"2602" questionable accounts / mac addresses: Reply). 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 and Wikipedia:Content removal.
    "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

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

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

      Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Fun in a Chinese Laundry#RfC on "Selected excerpts" section

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 23 May 2024) Would benefit from a neutral close to avoid unnecessary drama. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:FCSB#RfC about the Court Decisions

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 28 May 2024)

      Apparently badly filed RfC. Needs admin closure. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#RfC: Indian PM Counting

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 31 May 2024) Hey, please close this RfC on Indian PM counting. There have been no comments for 18 days. GrabUp - Talk 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Circumcision#Ethics in lead RfC

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 2 June 2024) Please close this RfC; discussion has halted for some time now. This is a persistent issue that needs final closure. Prcc27 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Sutherland_Springs_church_shooting#RfC:_Motherfuckers_or_not

      (Initiated 38 days ago on 5 June 2024) Need help with a neutral close. -- GreenC 21:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... TW 03:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should consensus 22 (not calling Trump a "liar" in Wikipedia's voice) be cancelled?

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 9 June 2024) - Controversial issue needs experienced closer. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 02:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Apr May Jun Jul Total
      CfD 0 0 12 6 18
      TfD 0 0 1 6 7
      MfD 0 1 0 0 1
      FfD 0 0 0 14 14
      RfD 0 0 4 8 12
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_22#Template:Edit_semi-protected

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 22 May 2024) Hasn't had anything new for a while, templates are template-protected. mwwv converse∫edits 15:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk: 1997 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) into 1997 Pacific hurricane season

      (Initiated 141 days ago on 23 February 2024) Discusion ran its course. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      {{not done}} per #1 yellow ball near the top of this page. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how this is an obvious decision, with the sources presented by the opposer and a neutral. 166.198.21.97 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done Soni (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 2 June 2024), Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requesting Closure of Rfc at Deaths in 2012

      This has already been listed at requests for closure, and already requested on its talk page, but it's now nearing a full month after the RfC and no one has been by to assess consensus. We're getting to a stage that editors are making assumptions about the RfC due to its lack of closure. Considering this RfC determines whether we will follow the MOS for that page and a large number of others, it has a large impact on how we proceed with making a great number of changes. Could someone with a bit of free time come by and assess the arguments presented in the RfC, and close? It's really not as long as it initially appears, especially as a lot of the comments are bare votes. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Um, maybe I'm dumb (highly possible), but hear me out:
      • the page is a list of notable deaths
      • anyone on the list (most of them) who already has a Wikipedia article would already have a reference for their death in their article, and thus a plain old wikilink to their article would suffice (thus, no additional ref on the list of deaths)
      • anyone/thing that is notable enough even though they have no article could be <ref>...</noref> and would have a ref on the page
      Problem solved. I'm not allowed to have a supervote when I close. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm ok with that, but it was proposed on the talk page recently (see the bottom section) and received some opposition. I think we may be able to hash out a consensus for it with further discussion, but my experience so far on that article has been that a lot of editors have strong immutable opinions, and coming to agreement (as distinct from consensus) can be tough. Some regulars seem to just want things to stay the way they've been for the last 9 years. With that said, even if we did that, we'd still need a standard for the citations we did need. Some editors have opposed using ref tags (<ref></ref>) altogether. I've posted my thoughts in the relevant section, but I think keeping the RfC and that topic separate may be best. Others may feel differently. Thanks for the suggestion in either case!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to clarify, BWilkins, were you planning to close the discussion? Feel free to take your time if so, I just want to know if I should be continuing to look for a closer. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Disruptive Editing (CIR issue with) User:Scott Delaney

      I hate to do this, I truly do because he is probably a very nice guy, but I have no choice. User:Scott Delaney (formally User:Scottdelaney1067) is a problem. I've been following him since he started in January trying to answer questions and help him along because I noticed problems from the start (see his talk page history). User:Mojoworker has also been aware of the problems for a while (both already notified). He has traditionally been rather uncommunicative, but is finally getting over that but in a misguided way. He means well, but the editor is incapable of helping us here. On his talk page you will find where I was forced to address a large number of his edits where he tags as vandalism and puts the template on the editors page. I've previously just addressed on the editor's pages, and decided to put them in plain view because he recently joined WP:CVUA. This isn't even one day's worth, and his history is very similar, with 1/4 to 1/3 of his actions being simply wrong. It will take some digging to see what I mean, which is why I brought it here instead of ANI, but it is time for review. If I thought a short term block would do something, I would have gladly done it myself. Unfortunately, it won't solve the problem because I know he isn't malicious or careless, he just doesn't get it and I would rather not labor the details, letting you decide for yourself. In the end, disruption is still disruption and now that he has decided to become a full time vandal fighter, the damage and number of people he bites is simply too high. As much as I dislike doing this, I have no choice but to recommend an indef for CIR, and open up the floor for any other suggestions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 03:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      From what I gather, this is primarily an issue of not understanding WP:VANDALISM and the policies surrounding the use of automated tools. For now, I think the best option is to revoke the rights to automated tools until he can demonstrate a clear and thorough understanding of the relevant policies. I don't see the need for an indefinite block based on CIR. -Cntras (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sigh. Sorry it's come to this. I guess it's no surprise, except that he promised just two days ago: "I have enrolled in the counter-vandalism unit academy. I will not try to revert any more vandalism until I have completed this course". That didn't last long... Earlier that day I had to revert some "test edit" warnings he gave to people that were testing edits in the sandbox and the X9 sandbox template. I had hopes that the WP:CVUA would do him good – I guess he's too impatient. Mojoworker (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) I've been monitoring this user's behavior for about a week, and what Dennis says is true. The user seems to use Twinkle for the vast majority of his edits, and removing the rights was one idea I had discussed with Dennis. So far as we could tell, there's no way to revoke a user's access to Twinkle. Otherwise, that would be a great idea. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ach, even reading his talk page is extremely alarming. However, he does have an "instructor" (some sort of adoption/mentor arrangement run by WP:CVU, seemingly), Chip123456, who has said on Scott's talk page that he will be away until Sunday (UK time). I think this discussion needs some input from Chip123456 to proceed usefully. On the other hand, I'm not convinced that Scott should be permitted to carry on incorrectly reverting and warning editors for the next 36 hours waiting for that. So, perhaps rather draconian, I suggest either Scott agree to stop completely from reverting and warning until Chip123456 is available again, or, if Scott isn't able or willing to agree to that, a 36 hour block be put in place to keep things under control in the meantime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Struck section that's now irrelevant as Chip, like MacArthur, has returned. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Any block for CIR is currently premature. If after candid discussion, the conduct resumes, perhaps then. Scott Delaney is in a period of current inactivity so nothing is in imminent peril. It is clear however that a user who barely over a week ago was asking what a sandbox was is not a strong candidate to label contributions as vandalism. Give the guy a firm admonition via a final warning, and then take action if it is further warranted. My76Strat (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would sincerely hope no admin would be blocking "for CIR" anyway, since it's only an essay, and indeed an essay which suggests not using the "competence is required" phrase to the person to whom it applies. Scott Delaney last edited less than twelve hours ago, identifying the removal of this unsourced drivel as vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think everyone gets what I mean without the need for laboring it. I don't come here on a whim, and not before trying a great deal of other solutions and consulting with several others. There is a lot more here than a casual glance or modest effort will see. This is why I know there is no malice in the wide variety of unusual edits and comments, and well over half are fine. It is the others that are disturbing, going back to day one. Again, I've been watching since January and came here only because I've tried everything else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      CIR is not the best framing of the issue -- disruptive editing is: If an editor treats situations that are not clearly vandalism as such, that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors. Concur with My76Strat -- last chance warning. Nobody Ent 13:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A quick observation. Many of the problems this editor has may be solved if he were to avoid using the big red "Rollback vandalism" button in Twinkle and use one of the other rollback buttons instead. He could still use the "level 1 warnings" if needed as they are not to bitey. Scott, if you are reading this then please, just pretend that the big red "rollback vandalism" button doesn't exist, use the "rollback AGF" button instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I was always wary of letting Scott into the CVU academy as I didn't know how much good it would actually do with all the problems he seems to have in editing. I think it would be smart to wait until Chip comes back, and reevaluate Scott after a week of working with Chip. Dan653 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The current problems might be TW related, but my concern predates the use of TW. The recent edits are the most obvious, but not the most telling, particularly when we consider my original reason for coming here. Use of TW only confirms, it didn't shed new light. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have left a long message on his TP describing what will happen if he continues and have had to give him a final warning (not using TW), let me know if you think it's a bit steep. At the moment, I am against a block, I agree with Dan, let him have a little longer to demonstrate he understands, and I will continue working with him, but if he continues to use the tools to label edits as vandalism and incorrectly (even though he was told how to) give our warnings/disrupt by driving away editors, I will support the block.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, how long are you giving Scott to learn? Dan653 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A week, I removed (not a week). Although, if he were to continue to do what he has been doing wrong, he is obviously not learning and the academy would not be the place to be. I, as I said have told him he needs to fully understand WP:VAND before continuing and have left a message explaining he needs to be able to identify what is('nt) vandalism. He needs to grasp the ideas of the basics. I've also said he shouldn't use 'rollback VAND' in red, but simply 'rollback' in blue, until he is sure what he is doing, which he has been told what to do. With regards to the warning (I'm sure this issue popped up somewhere) I gave him a talk on when to give the warnings. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Whatever the consensus agrees to, I will support. Based on my long experience with him, including experience that isn't easy to tell from just a cursory check, I still feel that there are deep concerns that go beyond "mistakes", so time will tell I suppose. It is very difficult to provide diffs for this, it takes a long, hard look at the totality of his history. Again, the problem isn't malice and I don't think he could or would be mean on purpose, but that isn't why we are here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It will be interesting to see if Scott responds to this or Chip123456's messages on his talk page. I've tried to start a dialogue with him a few times, and so far I don't think he's even acknowledged my existence. I haven't really seen a whole lot of communication with others either. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That is one part of my rationale here. I've probably tried to communicate more than everyone else combined. If he has a question, he will ask it. Other than that, he only talks via a template, even before becoming interested in vandalism. Perhaps that is why he became interested. He will provide some talk if someone questions his actions, once in a great while. Looking at those edits is somewhat telling. You have to dig a bit farther back to see this. Again, I'm willing to try whatever the community agrees to, but I can assure you that my CIR concerns are well founded and based on watching him and his edits on a regular basis, since his very first edits. He is intelligent and has the best intentions, but he does have a unique perspective that seem to make it difficult for him to differentiate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I was under the impression, from Scott that he maybe inactive over the weekend. As you said, Dennis, he does have the best intentions and I think a main factor of the problem is his lack of ability to listen to what other editors are saying. If, for a little while he spent less time reverting and more time studying the policies and reading what on his talk page, he would be a better editor, and this is what the CVUA is here for, so he can tackle vandalism correctly. Likewise, whatever the community agrees will be ok, but I'm thinking stay clear of a block at the moment.--Chip123456 (talk) 07:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      If there is no consensus for a long term fix of this problem thru a CIR block, I will perform a removal of TWINKLE from the user's vector.js, to be enforced thru page protection if need be. He can always ask us to add new scripts if he needs to. I have no clue about this University of Countervandalism or whatever it is, but if a user is hitting innocent users with reverts in an abnormal amount compared to the actual reverts (a % of mistaken reverts are always bound to happen, but this seems to be much higher than it should be), then, simply put, the user shouldn't be doing countervandalism work. He should be flat out told, get out of this field. He can always write articles or whatever he wants. Innocent users getting hit with mistaken warnings is a *BIG* issue, as most of them will be scared away, and we're hence deterring potential and actual contributors. In my opinion the way to proceed now is to a) wait for the user's input, I hope the user can voluntarily refrain from using twinkle and go back to doing manual undos and/or wait for this CVU university thingy b) if the input is deemed insufficient, I or any other administrator will remove TWINKLE from this user's vector.js, enforcing it with a full protection of the page(s) if necessary c) if the user still performs manual undos that are not acceptable in significant quantity, a CIR block should be imposed. Snowolf How can I help? 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks Snowolf. I had wondered if such a solution was possible using this very method. If I thought that this could be addressed via mentoring, I would have simply done this as I do have a history of helping Scott and he is familiar with me. And if I thought it was malicious, I would have just blocked him along the way. This seems like a reasonable compromise that will allow others to view his other ongoing contributions to determine CIR status, while limiting the potential damage he can do to the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Bad idea (vector.js protection). I appreciate and concur with the general concept blocking should be a last resort but in this instance the plan should be Snowolf's a, c. If the user cannot manage themselves after clear communication, a disruptive editing indef block should be applied. It's not worth the community's effort to try to micromanage a user; they're either mature enough to edit or not. If they're not, the likely outcome of plan b is we're back here at a future date dealing with behavior of a similar nature if not the specific instance. Or we're back here at a future date discussing unprotecting vector.js. Just not worth the effort, all in all. Nobody Ent 12:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, it's obviously a suboptimal idea, it's more like "if the community doesn't feel he should be CIR blocked but he's still doing damage" sort of thing. And actually technically our policies have always preferred blocking to protection, and I concur with that. Snowolf How can I help? 14:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, simply removing twinkle doesn't seem like a big deal, if having to go back to doing manual undos has the potential to make him think more, that could be fruitful. I am not saying this is the case, users closer to the matter would know that better than I. The vector.js protection is what I just referred to as suboptimal in the message above. Snowolf How can I help? 14:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      A block is inappropriate now because the editor has not edited since this AN was initiated. Continued disruption by mislabeling edits vandalism would be grounds for blocking.Nobody Ent 15:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Honestly, a short term block was warranted without coming to AN. I've warned him a number of times, albeit more gently. I didn't come here because I felt I needed permission to block him, I came here because I feel a short term block wouldn't be effective once the block expired. If a CIR block can't reach consensus, then something needs to be done to prevent damage to the project, but a block with him returning to using TW is not likely to be effective. I'm open minded, but my feelings that a longer term solution is best haven't changed. No one has shown me that my observations and conclusions are flawed. I haven't went and counted all the bad calls he made, those 8 or 10 were only part of one day, and at that point I gave up and came here. Obviously the actual number is much, much greater. How many good editors have we now lost because Scott bit them, with good intentions but an inability to discriminate? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Update: We have dropped Scott from the Academy as the issues he has have gone way beyond the purpose and scope of the academy. Dan653 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Then we are back with the question of what to do, as Scott has full access to TW and now even less guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have read the warnings that have been placed on my talk page and i have been thinking, I need to be more careful. I realized that if people remove content for a reason, it's Best not to revert it. I also realized if someone removes content, i need to click the blue rollback button using Twinkle and add, section blanking. I am going to Carefully check the edits made before taking any action. if you have any tips on what is Vandalism And what is not Vandalism, Please let me know. This will help me identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism. Thank you for letting me know about those false positives i made. This also Helps me to identify what is Vandalism, And What is Not vandalism.

      I will Be on wikipedia:Friday Afternoons.Saturday Mornings.Inactive on Sundays And on and off wikipedia Monday Through Thursday (New Zealand time)

      P.S If you're wondering why i am here, Dennis brown sent me here to discuss this.

      Thank You for understanding.Scott Delaney (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • With respect to the use of Twinkle only, one possibility is for Scott to remove Twinkle himself, from his vector page and from Gadgets (that's where I have it specified - I don't know if the two are mutually exclusive) and to promise to keep it removed until his mentor or an admin familiar with the issue believes he can use it appropriately. It seems to me it would quickly become apparent if Scott fails to keep his promise, at which point a block would be in order.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Should i prove that i can use Twinkle properly?. Because i have explained that i am Going To be much more Cautious when using twinkle.Do you think we should do some tests To see if i can use Twinkle Properly? Scott Delaney (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think they want you to not use it for a while, but tell me, what would you do differently with it, or without it? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I will Thoroughly Check the Edits Before taking any action. and if someome removes content, i will do what i said above. most of what i have promised to do is explained above.i have read WP:VAND.Scott Delaney (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I was looking back through your contributions. Other than reverting, do you ever change or add content to an article? I had trouble seeing anything, although I didn't go back all the way. Also, you have a curious way of writing (the strange capitalization and somewhat fragmentary style). I have a feeling others know more about all of this than I do, but it did give me some pause. As for Twinkle, I don't think your response to Dennis's question is particularly satisfying. Why don't you stop using Twinkle and prove you can edit appropriately without it before proving you can edit appropriately with it? Slowing you down wouldn't be a bad idea, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      How many manual edits do you want to see from me first?Scott Delaney (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't think putting a number on it would be helpful. Although you didn't answer my question about editing articles, why don't you focus on other aspects of editing articles rather than just reversions? I'm not familiar with your mentoring, so I don't know if you have any plans in this area, but getting away from hot spots sounds like a good idea. As long as I'm talking basics, what are your goals here? Why do you want to contribute to Wikipedia? You answered my question on my Talk page (nothing is hidden ) about your age. So, you're 14. There's all sorts of differences of opinion at Wikipedia about the age of editors, but most of us would acknowledge that 14 is young. When I was 14, the web didn't exist, let alone Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure television existed. I'm rambling, but there must be something that impelled you to register and edit, more than just an isolated event, something more important to you. What was that? Has it changed since you've been editing, not to mention being pummeled by the likes of me and others here? It's hard (at least for me) to ignore the fact that you're 14, but even if you were older, it looks to me like you're getting in over your head, that you need to slow down, that you need to expand your editing into less controversial areas of the project. I'll stop now and turn it back to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You might want to look at This edit.Because i do have experience identifying personal attacks. P.S I look at the Abuse log.Scott Delaney (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      This IP Has A long history of Personal Attacks and Legal Threats.Scott Delaney (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You might want to look Here. List of edits by the IP.Scott Delaney (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I Have issued him with a Final Warning. if he makes personal attacks and legal threats again, an Andministrator will have to take action.Scott Delaney (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Scott, you didn't answer my questions above. Instead, you picked an example of one of your actions that you believe is defensible. There's nothing wrong with that, but you need to focus on what others are telling you and asking you. That's more important.
      As for your actions with respect to 121., from looking at some of the history, it's a complicated situation in which there were apparently some significant problems with the article that the IP was trying to fix, but they were going about it in a disruptive manner. I wouldn't have issued the final warning because, at bottom, there were more important issues to address than the IP's frustration and outbursts. That said, I wouldn't say that your warning was wholly indefensible.
      Although I don't want to look at your entire history (partly because I trust Dennnis's judgment in these matters, and I have little desire to redo what he's already done), I did look at something you did relatively recently. An IP removed two sections of an article without explanation. Through our automated process, the two edits by the IP were tagged as "section blanking". You reverted the two edits here with Twinkle as vandalism. Your action was ill-considered on two levels. First, I would have not done a rollback, and I would not have called it vandalism. Instead, if I was going to revert, I would have done it with "sum" and put in an explanation like "unexplained removal of material". But, second, and more important, the sections the IP removed were unsourced, incredibly controversial, and contained BLP violations. Ultimately, both sections were properly removed by more experienced editors. I'm sorry, but this kind of action demonstrates that you simply do not have the judgment to rollback edits or, frankly, even to revert them manually.
      At this point, I would only permit you to edit at Wikipedia if you (1) promised to stop using Twinkle (remove it from your script list); (2) promise to stop reverting any other editor's edits; and (3) promise to stop issuing warnings to other editors. In other words, you would have to engage in other kinds of activities at Wikipedia, not what you have been doing up to now. Without those promises, I would block you indefinitely. With those promises, as long as you abide by them, I would permit you to edit. If you failed to comply, I would block you indefinitely. How long would you have to do this? I would say that at the end of 6 months, you could come back here and ask for some relief. At that time, you'd have to show that you've been making positive contributions to Wikipedia (in other words, just sitting out 6 months doing nothing or very little wouldn't be good enough) and that you have a deeper understanding of what to look at before reverting edits, and a promise that you would proceed much more slowly in doing so (I sense that you act too quickly). The abuse log is interesting, but just like the tags, it doesn't necessarily mean that the edit was vandalism. You have to judge each case on its merits.
      I'm sorry if this is blunt, but I sincerely think this has a positive aspect to it. I'm not sure why you like reverting and warning so much (maybe it's like a video game where you zap the enemy with the push of a button), but I don't see doing just reverting and warning leading to much growth as an editor. Getting involved in other things would help you and hopefully help Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would appear to be consistent with Snowolf's idea but a bit stronger, and the closest thing we have to a compromise, giving him the opportunity to continue as an editor. My original concerns still stand, and we have to do something here to limit damage. I would support this version as a good faith, last chance opportunity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I promise to do everything you mentioned. and i don't know if that editer was using a different ip address or not.Scott Delaney (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Is there an experienced editor that is willing to do some light-duty mentoring for Scott? It doesn't require an admin, just someone familiar with the basics here. I have a full plate, or I would myself, but I think that if Scott is to be allowed to be here, a little assistance is needed, to be fair to him. I expect that a few of us will continue to monitor, but I would feel better if someone would please step up and act as a primary point of contact for Scott and provide him with some guidance along the way. If someone will do that, I will boldly make adjustments to vector.js and setup a basic set of guidelines so there is no confusion. If we are to move forward in this way, clarity is needed to be fair, and just a little oversight from someone. As a personal favor, I am asking someone to help in this way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be willing to do that, but I would have one condition. I would need a commitment from Scott that he will communicate with me. I'd need him to acknowledge comments I make on his talk page (as opposed to reading them and not responding, or worse, blanking them), and I'd need him to answer any questions I might have in a straightforward manner. Basically I need two-way communication.
      I'm asking this as if it were a personal favor, and it is very important to me personally, but in reality, this kind of communication is essential to anyone who wants to seriously edit Wikipedia.
      @Scott: Would you be willing to accept me as a sort of mentor, and if yes, would you accept my condition of engaging in open two-way communication with me?
      @Dennis: I think the clarity and guidelines you propose are going to be very important (and helpful to me as well). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Editing ban proposal

      BANNED
      Ban enacted. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The original socking paid editor soliciting via elance.com (previously discussed here and here) very kindly alerted me to his latest undiscovered incarnations when he reported a different Elance paid sockpuppeteer to my talk page. I've subsequently blocked around a dozen accounts. I invite the community to formalise the de facto ban on him, something which I recommend unreservedly because there are no grounds whatsoever on which to support his inclusion in the community and his contributions. Here's why:

      Explanation and analysis of spammy crap
      Explanation and analysis of spammy crap

      This article (admins only) was created for a client. At face value, all the sources look OK. However, of the X sources, number two is given as this, but it's actually this press release. The same goes for:

      The first citation is a mere directory entry, and for obvious reasons not worth dwelling on. However, what's most suggestive is citation 7, the final one. Despite being well-presented in the sources as:

      ...the only instance of the subject in the entire page is a press release in the reader comments section of the article.

      Given this clear dishonesty and attempts to present PR guff as legitimate sourcing, and constant attempts to evade scrutiny (currently at 34 socks), there are no grounds whatsoever for this individual to be included. To put it simply: he can't be trusted, and it cannot be acceptable to put the burden for dealing with an individual of this nature on our volunteers when it is clear that he is so patently willing to harm the project for his own gain. WilliamH (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Not objecting to the idea of a ban for bad editing, but I do object to the ad hominem of adding the adjective 'paid'. This editor ought to be judged based on whether they have problematic edits or are socking, not whether they are being paid. The overwhelming number of socks and dishonest editing should be sufficient description. -- Avanu (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) While I agree with you that the abuse of multiple accounts and general dishonesty is prima facie evidence to eliminate this person from the community, it is specifically the receipt of payment in this case which motivates it - if they want that cheque, then the above evidence is what they have to do to get it. As I have said several times before when it comes to contributors such as this, if they want that cheque to clear then they realise there is only so open they can afford to be. WilliamH (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I haven't dwelled on that too much only because that job specifically called for cross-wiki work. But I agree that the accounts should be locked. WilliamH (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Editing ban proposal for User:LouisPhilippeCharles

      After some careful and thorough looks at the contributions of this editor and his socks, I am, at the moment proposing a site ban on editor LouisPhilippeCharles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) After his indefinitely block, he has, to date, used 86 Sockpuppets: ([1]), together with another 9 account socks ([2]) over the period of almost a year. He continually creates additional accounts to continue his disruptive activity, and despite all recommendations from fellow administrators to consider the standard offer, he persistently refuses their input, and just has one single purpose: Disruption and evading his block to continue these obnoxious activities, well after his talk page editing privileges have been revoked. I believe the community needs to step up and collectively say "you're done here" through establishing consensus for a full ban on him. I agree on how many people out there find votes for banning a waste of time, but all I can say is that if you don't like ban votes, then don't post here.

      • Support: Because I am the nominator of this ban. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 01:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Clearly this user has stubbornly ignoring any attempt to block or help him, and has socked intensively. Clearly WP: GAME. It's time for this user to be banned. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mr. Wikipediana, while you may have the best of intentions, I think you are likely to end up being the subject of a discussion similar to this one if you continue to engage in the conduct which you have been asked to cease. I am supportive of the fact that ban discussions should be able to run where necessary (particularly where editors affected are posting the request or such editors have directly asked someone else to set out the proposal). However, I am not convinced that this is the case here, or that the previous discussion you opened (above) was a constructive use of this noticeboard. In such circumstances, although I may not oppose the ban proposals raised, if this trend continues, I would not oppose a proposal to restrict you from starting such discussions either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok, I will now refrain from contributing to ban proposals now. I will now let other people decide. Ok. I'm sorry for doing so, and I will stop now. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 06:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      For clarity, my previous comment is not referring to this form of contribution as that is not an issue; instead, I am referring to circumstances like this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the heads up. Will be careful in the near future, and I will take all sides from now on from various editors if a ban is appropriate for an editor. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 10:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hammersoft

      RFC/U remained uncertified

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

      Can I please have some more admin views on whether the behaviour I outlined at User:Krolar62/Hammersoft (for the purposes of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Hammersoft), was incivil and disruptive (my view), or whether it's simply "rude" (Masem's view), or whether it's not an issue at all and I'm trying to "punish" Hammersoft (Black Kite's view). I'm asking here because I have major doubts that their views (as admins) would be in the majority given what Hammersoft actually did and what WP:CIV and WP:DE say about such things. I didn't expect support from Masem as he had already posted a (factually incorrect) view on the image issue in support of Hammersoft, in the process ignoring/misrepresenting me as well, but Black Kite's input as an apparent outsider was just alarmingly rude (including his edit summary of "ridiculous" [3] which I only just noticed) and seemingly meant as more of an attempt to intimidate me into dropping the complaint rather than a defence of Hammersoft or an actual engagement of my evidence. I've responded to both on the talk page, but I don't hold out much hope for resolution if it's just left to us without further outside input (I had imagined there would have been more input on an RFC by now). If I have truly misunderstood WP:CIV and WP:DR, then I would appreciate it if someone could just explain how with some actual details. Krolar62 (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      The RfC/U is uncertified; if it remains uncertified after 19 hours, it may be deleted on the same basis. It seems you have not observed the necessary formalities, so perhaps you ought to spend more time complying with the relevant requirements, rather than being concerned about others observations as to how you have escalated this. Should you fail to meet the relevant requirements within the required time, then the page will not exist and your concern will become a non-issue. Nevertheless, I do not think that the input provided so far is "alarmingly rude". Rather, I think you need to be reminded that you have requested for others to provide comment; this means you need to be able to accept that the feedback provided by others may not be the same as your own view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What part of the formalities have I not completed? I am in dispute with another user, I collected the evidence to support my claim that their behaviour fell below the required standard, I approached the user about the complaint first, but after his outright refusal to engage with my concerns, I filed the RFC and asked others who were involved whether they would like to certify it or not. Is there a step I have missed? I was aware that if it's not certified it will be deleted. I really couldn't have put any more time into trying to resolve this dispute than I already have (about 3 hours); I don't see what I've apparently done wrong in asking here for more feedback from other admins. If nobody shares my concerns I guess I can't complain, but I will remain confused as to how his behaviour is not a violation of the cited policies. I can accept feedback, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in expecting that feedback to be based on some actual facts of the case, and for that to come from uninvolved people. As I said, I don't think either Masem or Black Kite's contributions meet those criteria. Krolar62 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:RFC/U - "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem." Whilst other editors were involved in the talk page, the only person who had an actual dispute with Hammersoft was yourself. If this should have been taken anywhere, it would have been WP:WQA. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I chose not to use WQA for two reasons - first his outright dismissal of the complaint when I approached him, which negates the purpose of that venue from the outset leaving RFC as the next available step, and second because I do not see incivility as Hammersoft's only issue - in my view his behaviour is actually also disruptive per my evidence page, because it's apparent aim is to misrepresent the consensus or stifle further debate through evasion, repetition (IDHT) and obfuscation, instead of properly engaging. If he had just been rude but the discussion had otherwise been able to proceed to an actual supportable conclusion, WQA might have been sufficient, or I might not have bothered raising a complaint at all. But I see his behaviour as an obstacle to the discussion ever occurring properly (unless of course I did upload an image, whereupon he said he would immediately take it to FFD, where he would presumably just make the same policy points and observations that he's already made, which have already been addressed and which are awaiting answers from him).
      As for the RFC single disputant aspect - I was not alone - in the prior discussion Hammersoft cited, I counted SaltyBoatr's last comment as evidence he too saw Hammersoft's behaviour as an issue - I have asked if him if he would co-certify. I could have also asked Krawunsel, who clearly also has an issue with Hammersoft's behaviour, but I thought it best not to consider him a potential co-certifier, as he chose to deal with it by trading insults rather than dispute resolution. Others appear to have had similar issues with Hammersoft in the arena of NFC discussions outside of Kim Jong-un also, so I think I am justified in not considering this to be a single issue between just me and him. Krolar62 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I noticed that you'd canvassed other editors to support the RFC/U, which wasn't exactly ideal either. As for anyone who has had similar issues with that editor outside this area, that's irrelevant to this RFC/U. From what I can see, the majority of Hammersoft's disputes with other editors appears to be with editors who similarly don't want to conform with WP:NFCC, but as I see, that's a separate issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Another allegation? The RFC instructions say I have to seek a co-certifier from the people who were also involved, so that's what I did. And the other people's experiences are well within this RFC's area - it involves the same behaviour and the same policy, the only variant being the precise image/article, and who Hammersoft is trying to evade/ignore. And by now you already know that I reject your claim about what I supposedly think of NFCC. Krolar62 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. Also, I'm not entirely sure how "What RFC/U is not for is for a single SPA with a bad case of WP:IDHT (and who displayed a remarkable knowledge of Wikipedia policy in their very first edit, interestingly) to attempt to "punish" another editor for disagreeing with his attempts to violate WP:NFCC" is alarmingly rude, given that it's simply a summation of the facts. The IDHT part is clearly indicated by the fact that they are now dragging their non-dispute to yet another noticeboard. Black Kite (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's rude to claim RFC/U is not for SPAs and to claim that I have a "bad case" of IDHT, when you don't offer anything in the way of support for these claims. It's rude to claim I am seeking to "punish" abother editor, when all I've done is follow the steps advised in WP:DR. It's rude for you to repeat this view here as if I'd never commented on it when you made it the first time at the RFC, which remains unanswered [4] (this is an example of me giving actual proof of IDHT behaviour on your part, no?). It's also rude to state that I am now "dragging their non-dispute to yet another noticeboard", when this is the first noticeboard I've mentioned it on. These are to my mind all rude behaviours, both in ordinary society as well as in Wikipedia (WP:CIV/WP:DE).
      For the avoidance of doubt, here is what I think is the relevant part of the SPA page: "a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless". Here is what I think is relevant from the IDHT page: "perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input". I'd appreciate it if you would just explain, based on those extracts, precisely how in your opinion that I am not entitled to use RFC/U, or that I have a "bad case" of IDHT.
      Anyone can make unsubstantiated allegations like this (including the claim that I'm trying to "violate" NFCC, even though you don't offer any proof of this either), but acting surprised when the target of those allegations disagrees and asks for some supporting evidence, is not really on, certainly not in an admin. The use of IDHT on your part while you level the same allegation of IDHT at me, is simply hypocrisy, which should definitely be unacceptable in an admin.
      The allegations that I am violating NFCC are not really relevant to this section, but if anyone wants to know my view on that, they can read my evidence sub-page User:Krolar62/Hammersoft and the talk page of Kim Jong-un, where I've directly referenced both the EDP and the NFC to support my position, and where several queries to Hammersoft & Masem about their position remain unanswered.
      On the issue of NFC though, it should be noted that at no point have I even attempted to upload the said image yet, all I am attempting to do is have a discussion as to whether Hammersoft's intitial claim that its "unnacceptable" holds true. It really should be possible for this to happen in a way that doesn't go against WP:CIV and WP:DE (or if I've misunderstood those policies, it should be possible to get an explanation here at the administrator's noticeboard as to how I've erred in my understanding of what a proper, respectful, fact based discussion on Wikipedia looks like). Krolar62 (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (1) This is the second noticeboard. RFC/U was the first. (2) I made the point that you are a SPA as part of the comment - it's a fact - it doesn't relate to the RFC/U particularly, but it's interesting background. (3) The IDHT part is clearly visible for anyone to see from the talkpage, where you attempt to wikilawyer round NFCC a number of times. (4) You were attempting to violate NFCC as you were told. Jong-un is a public figure and many photographs are taken of him, as a quick Google image search will show. The fact that none of these have been released on free licences yet is irrelevant - it is likely (as the policy says - "(Unacceptable use includes) pictures of people still alive ... provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.") that one will be at some point. If you had a problem with Hammersoft's civility then as I say above you would have been better off going to WP:WQA. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      For 1), I didn't think RFC was a noticeboard (it certainly doesn't appear to function like one), but even so, taking this as the second noticeboard, your statement was still clearly hyperbolic and needlessly barbed. In 2), the sentence construct "What RFC/U is not for is for a single SPA" seems to be unambiguous to me. The fact that I have so far only been engaged with this issue is indeed an (uncontested) fact, but I'd dispute that you meant to include it in that sentence as a mere factual observation, not when the rest of it goes far beyond mere observations into the territory of allegations. You meant something by it, so in light of the part of the SPA page that I quoted above, what specifically is it about my status as an SPA that you think was relevant background to that comment? As for 3), this is again just a restatement of your belief without considering my response (IDHT #2?) or offering any proof except the always unconvincing argument that it's just obvious. If it's obvious, it's not going to be that hard to explain to others why you're saying it. I now think that it's you who has a bad case of IDHT, the difference being that I can at least justify that claim with two pretty good examples of just such behaviour. Regarding 4), as I said this isn't the place to get into the NFC argument - the points you make on that have already been responded to at the Kim Jong-un talk page in detail and with reference to both the EDP and the NFC when Hammersoft made them originally. Your view that this would be a violation is disputed not just by me, but others editors as well. A simple restatement here is not going to put that issue to bed any time soon, given the many holes and flaws in the argument as it applies to the specific case of Kim Jong-un. Krolar62 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly I think you're only confirming what I said above. I can understand why Hammersoft refused to continue to engage with you, and I think I will do the same, rather than wasting my time. Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You're cutting and running because you can't use my words or actions against me at all - nothing I've said or done marries up to anything in WP:SPA, WP:WL or WP:IDHT. This is why you fell back on appeals to the 'obvious' or rehashes of the same accusations. When push comes to shove, defensible claims will always get defended. You've only wasted time by refusing to do what should be a simple exercise - match up statements of mine to conclusions of yours, like any admin is expected to be able to do. Hammersoft's refusal to engage is not relevant - that's an image policy dispute between equals - and his poor behaviour can be separated from the content issue into the RFC, as advised in WP:DR and as I've done. Your refusal to engage here though is correctly viewed in light of your status as an admin speaking on the admin's noticeboard with the sole intent of accusing me of various bad things, not least of wanting to "punish" another user. Krolar62 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Snow close?

      Could we get a snow close on this? The nom has been withdrawn and all other !votes are "Keep". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User rights

      I created my account on March, 2010.It was my fresh start with Wikipedia and wasn't aware of any policies.In June,2010 I requested for Roll-backer and Reviewer permission.But, then I was given Rollbacker, Reviewer and autopatrolled rights all together.Since then, I have become an experienced editor here.But, For my curiousity, I want to know why I was given autopatrlled right at that time?I hadn't requested for it.neither I was eligible for it according to criteria.I had created only 2-3 articles at that time.See my rights log.[[5]]Regards, Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 05:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You should ask User:Geometry guy who gave you the autopatrolled. Snowolf How can I help? 07:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Autopatrolled was being handed out like candy for a while ... the "official" bar of 75 articles was widely ignored. Even some people with no articles at all got it. If I remember, one justification for the relaxed criteria was that admins were granted autopatrolled automatically, and many of them had created few or no articles despite running nearly unopposed RfA's, so that it was unfair to deny the status to others simply because they were not also admins. It does no harm to have it, but if you really want it gone I'm sure Geometry guy will do that (or any admin). Never mind, I see that you dont have autopatrolled anymore so it's a moot point. I think that it was just a matter of people feeling more generous than the Requests For Permissions guidelines recommended. ☮Soap☮ 15:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      IPV6 blocking

      I have made my first spambot block for an IPV6 address. I have blocked User:2001:288:0:34:0:0:0:0/64 as well as User:2001:288:0:34:250:56FF:FE92:7B6E (who revealed their own mac address) This may infact be someone fooling around running XRumer so perhaps a longish block is not jsutified. Is there a way to check local or global contributions for the /64 prefix? Is there a way to get a talk page for the whole subnet 2001:288:0:34:0:0:0:0/64 so that what ever IP they may select from the net, they will get a message to read? And finally can we get a method to block anything that ends with 250:56FF:FE92:7B6E, since that part of the address is probably fixed, being mac based? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      As far as I know: a) no b) no c) no. Snowolf How can I help? 06:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Expanding a bit: a) CIDR contribs by Mike.lifeguard which is what we use to check local contribs for IP ranges doesn't appear to support IPv6 and Luxo's tool which we use for global contribs doesn't support ranges. Snowolf How can I help? 07:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But Pathoschild's stalk toy does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It is not guaranteed to be the MAC address - they just might be using stateful/manual address configuration or a randomizer to obscure the MAC address. You probably shouldn't block the /64 unless you clearly see fooling around in it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Vandalism over IPv6 on wheeIs! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:1F08:1D4:0:0:0:2 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Yes but how is that helpful? That tells you blocks, not edits. Snowolf How can I help? 05:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There are links for edits, though I haven't made sure that it only does it for individual addresses or for ranges.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The link points you to luxo Snowolf How can I help? 18:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Facepalm Facepalm.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Discussion of IPv6 blocking at the Village Pump (technical)

      See WP:VPT#IPv6 schoolblock question which is also about range-blocking. Dougweller (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Marking of inactive bots

      Please comment at this request, I think there could be some discussion. Rcsprinter (whisper) 18:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Request for a longer block to vandal-only anon

      98.195.163.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

      This user, blocked in march for 3 months, simply waited block's end to start again to vandalize (this time 23 edits in 2 days). His field are the US street gangs, his style is to add hoaxes masked as serious contribs about not existant gangs, places and other datas related to crime into several US cities. User is the anon sockpuppet of Sqadgangsterkilla (see contribs), indefinitely blocked in march. Suddenly, Sqadgangster used to made the 1st edits logged in and to continue as 98.195.etc

      This is the 5th time that 98.195.xx has been blocked (3 months again). Each time he waits and starts vandalizing waiting for a new block, ignoring any warning. I'm following this vandalisms from the end of january and I've 98.195 on my watchlist.

      For the reasons shown, supposing that the user will start again vandalizing in september, I request for a longer block. User seems to be only interested into add hoaxes about street gangs and nothing else. IMHO, I also suppose that a longer block could be possible because 98.195.163.162 seems to be an IP used only by the "gangster". Thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg 04:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It would be best to discuss this with the blocking admin (Infrogmation (talk · contribs)) first. Given the account's history I think that a longer block would be justified, but Infrogmation is probably the best placed admin to consider this in the first instance. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no objection to imposing a longer block. (My reimposing a block the same length as the last one was done simply to stop the continuing damage being done by the vandal. If others who have studied the account's history in more detail think I was too lenient, I defer to their assessment.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, Comcast addresses can be blocked for an extended amount of time. Even though they are dynamic addresses, they don't change very often are not like many other ISPs. In many cases, it takes a year before they change and for some, it's more than a year. Elockid (Talk) 19:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course, I reported the "gangster" issue to discuss about it and to focus the problem, also because I'm following him from January. Anyway, I watched 98.195... for months and I lost his great return, lol :-) ... Thanks again for attention and regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Perth move situation and a wider systemic issue it highlights

      Hi - as was discussed earlier in AN/I (and closed as it wasn't the venue for it), there was a contentious RM at Talk:Perth, Western Australia#Requested_move, which was closed in favour of moving (with 19 supports and 13 opposes). However, three subsequent admins reverted and re-reverted until it ended up back at the status quo. Part of the problem was a complete disagreement on whether consensus had been reached - the closer clearly thought 60% was enough, but others didn't.

      It now looks like ArbCom are going to accept a separate case about the reverts; what we never really managed to do was decide how to solve the original problem, and if ArbCom do accept a case, I'm not sure that the RM should be left in limbo for however many weeks or months it takes to sort that out, especially since the actual location of the article is not part of the ArbCom case. I've talked to a few admins offsite - all of whom have recused themselves from involvement so they could offer me advice - and they believe the initial close was sound.

      Two things upfront:

      1. I am not even remotely trying to pretend I'm uninvolved or neutral - I voted in the RM, and I agreed with the original close.
      2. I am not trying to convince some poor sod here to be the fifth admin to get involved in this sorry mess, I'm seeking a general discussion on a matter where the system appears to be broken.

      We have no independent review mechanism or other natural forum for discussion which can cope with a situation like this. For AfD or CfD, etc, there's always been DRV. But moves seem to exist in a parallel universe. Move review is untested and does not have sufficient standing in policy terms to be respected by all, and the history of RfCs in resolving these things is patchy at best. I highly doubt the Perth article is the first time this problem has emerged, too. So, any ideas? Orderinchaos 20:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • I have disambiguated incoming links th Perth (a drama-free alternative to a move). DuncanHill (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This will likely be among the first nominations at Wikipedia:Move review. There is a strong consensus for a move review process. The process is mostly in place with discussions continuing to resolve some issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said at the Arbcom page, I think the discussion should have been closed as No Consensus, because (a) 19-13 isn't much of a consensus, and (b) far too many of the Support votes were just votes of the general format "Australian Perth is clearly the primary topic". Whether it is or not, I'd be wanting to see some justification for that. However you are right about the wider systemic issue (see, for example, the history of Yogurt). I can't see an RfC helping either, so I'd suggest that it would be better to try and get Move Review sorted out - the problem is though, like DRV, that it may just end up being the same discussion again...though it does have the advantage (like DRV) that non-involved editors will get involved. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Backlog at CSD

      There's a big-ish back log at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. 41 may not seem so big in comparison to other backlogs but these tend to come in fairly fast so it could get out of hand. --RA (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      41 is not a backlog. Indeed, it doesn't become one until over 50. Turns out my bot was down too, which didn't help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Making botlike edits for a short while

      I have a very specific situation and I can't find an appropriate place to make the request so I will ask it here. I recently created {{Navbox Copelatus}} in order to de-orphan all of the articles listed on the page Copelatus. There are 422 different species and making that many edits manually or even semi-manually would be incredibly time consuming. I would like to use bot-mode on AWB (after I have manually checked the first few articles to make sure everything works out correctly) to make those edits more easily. Can I receive permission to do so? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Upon further review, it appears that bot mode is not available for me on English Wikipedia. I had only used it on Spanish Wikipedia previously. I will register a bot account. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Or ask at WP:BOTREQ. BencherliteTalk 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Requests for closure going unheeded?

      The section of "requests for closure" at the top of this page seems counterproductive. Admins simply aren't looking at it, and it seems that discussions are being archived before being acted upon. Perhaps admins should add it to their watchlists? — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      It looks like you don't know, that the "requests for closure" isn't on this page and is transcluded from WP:ANRFC. Thus the section isn't archived by a bot, and only sections with closed discussion are archived. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 13:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      How to best go about deleting good edits by a banned user

      I needed some advice on this matter.

      Earlier this week, Sheynhertz-Unbayg (talk · contribs) had another round of accounts banned for sockpuppetry. Sheynhertz-Unbayg has been banned for over two years for assorted disruptions to the community, yet continues to attempt to contribute via a vast array of sockpuppets (nearly 250 as of last count).

      Anywho, per WP:BAN, all of the accounts' edits should be summarily reverted. For now, I've been dealing specifically with sock Shalshelet (talk · contribs), which is the newest sock I first noticed. However, a great deal of them are "positive" edits and are particularly tricky to revert cleanly. I've tagged a number of pages with criteria G5 deletion tags, but reverting other edits in other places is more tricky (where he moved around information to disambig pages and such), and I'm not sure if a few edits should be reverted at all, since they were actually helpful.

      Basically, I'm not sure if all edits should be reverted on principle, or if I should ignore all rules and let the helpful ones sit. Any advice (and some outside eyes) in the matter would be greatly appreciated. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I think even if the edits added value to the article, the fact that they came from socks of a banned user makes them worth being reverted. Sheynhertz-Unbayg should just get lost and RTV - those edits don't erase his or her sins. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Last time I looked, there was not a concept in WP:BAN that all such edits should be reverted, only that they can be reverted. I've always taken that to mean it is ok to ABF towards the individual edits and remove them if you think they may be pursuing an agenda, misrepresenting sources, etc., without having to check them carefully. But if you think they do hold up to scrutiny, it's ok to leave them in. And because humans differ from one another, I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all way to tell what effect reversion (or any other action) will have on another person's behavior, especially if that person's behavior is already abnormal enough that they managed to get banned. If your reading of this particular person suggests a particular course of action, then go for it, but don't overgeneralize. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3 has some further discussion. 69.228.171.139 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Any argument for reverting all edits are ridiculous. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Reverting helpful edits is no worse than blatant vandalism and could be construed as disrupting the encyclopedia to make a point. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So you can do anything you like and if you are banned simply start editing under a false name and you'll be able to carry on as if nothing has happened, retaining your editing priveleges? Terrific. Britmax (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You do not retain privileges, you get blocked. That doesn't mean we should intentionally revert constructive edits. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There are only very few, very specific instances in which banned editors edits are reverted en masse, regardless of how useful they are. This does not seem to be one of these cases. --Conti|✉ 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's about the encyclopedia - does this benefit the encyclopedia? Removing good, sourced content doesn't do that. People are not being rewarded by having their text in the project, as it isn't their text. Secretlondon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm with 69.228.171.139 and would say that depends on how difficult it is to ascertain whether an edit is helpful or not. Per WP:BAN, if we remove some good edits together with the bad ones, that's collateral damage, and "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert", but we need not revert edits we consider an obvious improvement. Huon (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a simply logical thought process: If I see a productive edit by a banned user, I could follow the rules to the letter and revert. And then immediately revert myself again, claiming responsibility for those edits. Or I might not revert the edits in the first place and save myself some time. --Conti|✉ 17:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with RyanVesey, Huon, Conti, etc. If the a contribution is clearly positive, there's no reason to revert it. As an analogy: If a high school student was suspended/expelled for constantly vandalizing the school and he came back later to pick up trash and clean the place, the administration would likely tell him he had to leave because he is not supposed to be there, but they wouldn't dump the trash back out onto the floor that he had picked up. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Copyright Infringement in direct quoting

      According to this, a 400-word direct quote from a 500-page book is considered infringement of the copyright law. I have two questions based on that:

      1. What if the book we are quoting from has 250 pages. Does that mean, we are allowed only 200 words in the direct quote?

      2. If we quote a book directly in a single article more than once, should we sum up all the quotes' word count to apply this rule or the rule is only talking about per-single-quote?

      Thank You--Kazemita1 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      1.As that was a legal case, we can't make a comparable statement easily. But hopefully someone will be along to say more about this.
      2.Over the article, and in fact possibly over all of Wikipedia. Again let's see what others say. I'm sure about over the article (or talk page or anywhere), and I've certainly seen it suggested over Wikipedia in the case of lyrics. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a hard call. Fair use depends on a four factors [6]. One factor is "The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole". On the whole, we try to stay very far from any line between fair use and infringement. But it also depends on part on those other points. If having it on Wikipedia would interfere with the ability of the copyright holder to make money ("The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work") then we need to be extremely careful. When quoting from (say) an academic book, it likely we are helping rather than harming sales so larger quotes (a hundred words or some such) might be appropriate. As far as your second question, it should be in total across Wikipedia. So basically the answer is "it depends" but pay attention to those four factors and stay well away from anything close to infringement. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two key pieces on the 400 word case are the intent of use and the commercial harm. The text was published specifically to scoop a competitor, and Harper & Row lost a contract because of the actions of publishing those 400 words. If WP used the same 400 words, it is very doubtful that these will ever apply. We still need to be cognizant of how much we take and we dare not set any specific levels for feat of if we are wrong. --MASEM (t) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition to the key point raised by Masem, assuming there was a ratio to determine acceptable copying, it would not scale linearly. Quoting 200 words from a 250 page work would be much less of a problem then the 400 from a 500 pager work. It is also valuable to discourage unnecessary quoting. If practical text on Wikipedia should always be original, only in circumstances where a quote is essential for understanding the material should a direct quote be used. Monty845 17:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Semiprotected admin talk pages

      What's the deal with longterm protection of some admin talk pages I've come across? E.g. User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise is semiprotected since March, indefinitely. Wikipedia:Protection policy#User pages says that "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." I've seen other permanently semiprotected admin talk pages without a "conspicuously linked" unprotected subpage as advised for those rare cases justifying long-term protection. So this is not about FPaS in particular. Still, I'd notify him of this discussion, if I could. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Given what I'm looking at the talk page log, there was a lot of personal attacks against FPaS, including the need to revdel certain additions. Semi-prot seems to be appropriate if a user's talk page is going to attract such attacks. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Informed him. Some Admins get a lot of abuse (as do some editors), and if this is necessary it's necessary. And it's rare. Dougweller (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So that also exempts an admin from linking to an unprotected subpage as the policy suggests? In that case, shouldn't the policy be updated to reflect actual practice? --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I've never seen any benefit in that solution. If you have a need of protecting your house from burglars, you don't lock the front door and then put a sign on it saying "the back door is open". You could just as well leave the front door open right away. What's the difference between harassers vandalizing the one page or the other? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the notification. In my specific case, my page has been the object of too much harassment from several banned users, so it has been necessary to keep it protected and will likely continue to be. Sorry about any inconvenience. To the IP: Would you care to explain under what prior account or IP you encountered me and why you had a need of contacting me? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just stumbled upon your talk by chance. Nothing to do with you in particular. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, no problem then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      "2602" questionable accounts / mac addresses

      Hello.

      I cannot notify the user who I am expressing concern over, firstly, because I am not exactly sure what is going on here, secondly, I do not know if there is any feature on Wikipedia which addresses a user by a mac address under certain conditions, and therefore, the user may not be intentionally "username hopping".

      If you type into the search box, User talk:2602, you will see many suggestions appear of usernames which appear to be mac addresses which begin with that number. I noticed that at least one of those addresses was blocked for BLP / neutral point of view violations. What also confuses me is that I would figure that if a sockpuppeteer was all that prolific, (s)he would not use such obvious usernames with the same prefix, which would be easily trackable, possibly indicating that the number assignment is automatic.

      I'd appreciate if somebody would provide assistance with this matter to explain what is going on here and for any administrators to use their discretion to determine what is going on and what should be done. I do not know if there is any previous discussion regarding this issue. I began to notice this starting this month. Thanks. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Those aren't Mac addresses, they are IPv6 addresses. We are only slowly getting used to them. There have been a couple of discussions about technical and administrative issues regarding the new protocol. It's been enabled only for a few days. Basically, these are just normal anon IP editors just like you, only using the new IP system. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So how did they edit before this was enabled? Were they unable to edit? 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, is there a possibility that it is the same editor in the "2602" range, or is "2602" a common prefix? I'm not as familiar with these. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a large range, I believe, and before IPv6 they were assigned a "normal" IPv4 address which they edited under, much like the one which you are using.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm a bit confused. Are you speaking of the fact that these IP addresses have recently been enabled on the Internet, or on Wikipedia? Are you stating that if the server does not allow you to connect with an IP V6 address, you will automatically be connected using an IP V4 address? Thanks. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=497270954"