Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"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.

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

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 42 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 74 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC) 20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 73 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 73 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 70 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 64 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 49 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 48 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 46 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 46 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

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)

Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead

(Initiated 47 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 44 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 41 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations

(Initiated 26 days ago on 24 May 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 20 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)

Talk:Awareness#Request for Comment on ordering of philosophy and psychology

(Initiated 0 days ago on 19 June 2024) An editor started an RfC confirmed to be improper by a third opinion. Please close the RfC as an improper RfC. Closetside (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Closetside: I've done this unilaterally since I was the one who initiated it inappropriately. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 07:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Closed

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	6	17	138	161
TfD	0	0	1	1	2
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	9	27	36
AfD	0	0	0	9	9

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities

(Initiated 77 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe

(Initiated 74 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres

(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers

(Initiated 69 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists

(Initiated 67 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers

(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history

(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau

(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge

(Initiated 50 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 28 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 23 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)

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 18 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta

Hopiakuta (talk · contribs)

Can someone tell me what exactly is this user doing? I've been looking over his history and he's taking a lot of non-existent pages and making them into redirects. Especially his edit summary is impossible to decipher. All I guess by this is that he's doing some sort of google bomb in association with these terms and his edits goes back years. Judging by his talk history, there hasn't been much notice at all about this habit. ViriiK (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• What is it you want an admin to do here exactly? You don't appear to have tried simply asking them. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Look at his edit history. I'm guessing he's manipulating wikipedia to his advantage to implement some sort of Google bomb or something similar. ViriiK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While his edit summaries are incomprehensible, the redirects themselves look good to me. Have you tried contacting the editor? I've notified him of this discussion. Huon (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should have been brought up with the user before running to ANI with it, but if garbage like this and this and this is not SEO then I don't know what it is. See User talk:Hopiakuta/ index Samantha Geimer Lot Elizabeth Ann Smart Gilmour Deon Baptiste Ian Baptiste Emmett Louis Till Stanley Ann Dunham Anneke Frank Annele Frank Charles Augustus Lindbergh, which is the user's talk page before it was moved to a hidden sub-page in May. Nearly every edit since the middle of 2007 has been like this.

Is this something like the Sven70 situation? It looks that way, except there was no problem with Sven's articlespace edits, while these ones are indistinguishable from SEO spam to me. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Treat me like I'm dumb. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for years and I've read people's edit history which this was just the first time I've seen this long list of incomprehensible changes in the edit reasons. I felt like there was some motive behind it like a google bomb or some form of SEO manipulation since the edit reasons do have links to the articles or redirects. ViriiK (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Requesting some time, leaving a note with Xeno, who at one point was mentoring said user and might be able to shed light on this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You make up fantasy crimes that are not supported by evidence, then delete honest questions.

You have even made Uunartoq_Qeqertaq inhabited, which is absolute nonsense.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 11:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I never made up any "fantasy crimes". I simply said that your edit history is incomprehensible and it warranted my suspicion that there was some motive behind your edit reasons. As for "Uunartoq Qeqertaq" where did I do that? It never was inhabited in its entire history so it never was deserted in the first place. How can you desert something if no one has lived there permanently? ViriiK (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec, responding to Penwhale:) Xeno seems to be inactive; I asked them about this some time ago (User talk:Xeno/Archive 29#Confusing edits by Hopiakuta) and received no response. In view of talk page contributions that are ... inscrutable ... at best, maybe a preventative block is appropriate? If only because Hopiakuta appears unable to meaningfully communicate with others, which isn't good for a collaborative project like ours.  Sandstein  11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason how I came across you was because of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stericycle&action=history where you made these modifications http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stericycle&diff=502742089&oldid=502714710 that made no sense whatsoever. The company, Stericycle, has nothing to do with any of these categories. Can you explain how you come to these conclusions? ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A desert island is uninhabited island is an island that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans. Uninhabited islands are often used in movies or stories about shipwrecked people, and are also used as stereotypes for the idea of "paradise". Some uninhabited islands are protected as nature reserves and some are privately owned. Devon Island in Canada is claimed to be the largest uninhabited island in the world.

Small coral atolls or islands usually have no source of fresh water, but at times a fresh water lens (Ghyben-Herzberg lens) can be reached with a well.

Collaborative fraud.

I do not need to copy them all; this is from google:

Report: Romney made millions from investing in abortion related firm

article.wn.com/.../Report_Romney_made_millions_from_investing_i...

Jul 3, 2012 – Romney Invested In Abortion Cleanup Company Stericycle ..... $100000 and $250000 in the Bain Capital Asia fund that purchased Uniview.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 11:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't answer my question on the Stericycle changes. The modifications you made to Stericycle specifically with those categories did not belong there nor was there a valid reason to do so. Also I reverted the changes from that IP address regarding Stericycle because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:NOT#NEWS As for "Desert Island", I'm talking about this change I made specifically because you made this change http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Desert_island&diff=502406239&oldid=492458336 which you happened to include some non-related article's discussion on an already deleted article. I don't care about the whole "desert island" (although you just answered your own question but I can say that this is a case of WP:COMPETENCE). I'm calling into question how do you come to bring unrelated stuff into the talk pages or any article anywhere on wikipedia? Doing investigation of my own, I assume you own a site called altacalifernia.com and altacaliferne.com which thankfully is broken although your name is implicated in the broken links. Chrome actually prevents me from going via to the redirect site but in the link it says var/chroot/home/content/h/o/p/hopiaku/html/htttp://reltime2012.ru/frunleh?9 However had it properly worked Chrome actually let me visited the site, it redirects I would have been sent to a malware website. I'm suspecting that you are doing SEO manipulation on google or some other website to redirect users to malware websites. ViriiK (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is too convoluted & I have not the slightest knowledge how to do most of what you have described, let alone the intent.

that had yet to be (or is not currently) populated by humans.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 13:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't own these websites despite the fact you linked them in your talk pages (which I've removed) but are now malware redirects? ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, a few minutes looking at this user's 'contributions' reveals that regardless of the motivation for making them, they are gibberish. On that basis, a permanent block per WP:COMPETENCE looks a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out what is behind this is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Egads. Block this nonsensical user now so that the cleanup can begin, i.e. "Condo Rice" redirects to Condoleeza Rice, "Mars Won" to Mars One, etc... Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

He also has the following sockpuppet accounts which are: User:persina & User:Kutahopia ViriiK (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither account seems to have been used since 2007. I suspect they were never intended for socking - they should likewise be blocked, per WP:COMPETENCE, which is the only relevant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. I would also cite the case of WP:ELNO because his sites which he's linked (all of which I have removed) were redirects to malware websites. He can't simply claim that he doesn't own them since the registration is still intact and not going to expire until 2013. The links were inserted in his sockpuppet account & his own account including external wikipedia sites. See: [4], [5], [6], [7] ViriiK (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked Hopiakuta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his alternate accounts indefinitely because the above contributions show that they lack the ability to communicate (and, at least to an extent, edit) meaningfully.  Sandstein  13:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may comment in place of Xeno, as I followed some of the mentoring he has done with Hopiakuta at the time. Hopiakuta is a user with good faith, who is suffering form some kind of disability. If I remember correctly, Myofascial pain syndrome, probably blindness - and maybe more. He seems to be using outdated assistive technologies. It's very difficult for him to participate, but he seems to be attached to it very much.

I understand your choice to ban this user, as collaboration with him is difficult. But I fear it might be a harsh decision for him. The least thing to do would be to treat him as a person with good faith, and not a vandal. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse this block. I attempted to communicate with this user in the past and they not only ignored me, but removed their talk page history by moving their talk page to this ridiculous title. This suggests unwillingness to edit helpfully (or at least incompetence), but the links to malware suggest malice. How exactly do you accidentally link to malware sites? Even if somehow this is all an innocent misunderstanding due to their disability, Wikipedia is not therapy, and their disruptive editing should not be allowed to continue.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall any links to malware in previous AN/I threads or in my previous "interactions" with him. Perhaps his computer is infected. Otherwise, I believe the situation is unchanged from that point, in which (IIRC) close monitoring and mentoring was recommended, essentially per WP:COMPETENCE. If mentoring isn't working I see no other choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I also don't see any other solution than to block him at the moment. The mentoring seemed to work as long as Xeno was around. If I was near from Hopiakuta in real life I would do the mentoring, or do something to help, as I have experience in the field. But from a distance, and through the obscure Wikipedia discussion system, it seems hardly feasible to me. I feel sad for him, but can't do much. Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to open a can of worms, and it is quite possible (likely even) that these are two different people, but the behavior of creating meaningless redirects is exactly what Bowei Huang (and all of his incarnations) eventually got indeffed/banned for. I think his most recent account was User:Bowei Huang 2, which clearly shows the redirect creation situation. Now, something in the patterns of speech doesn't match exactly for me, so I'm not convinced of the connection, but given the similar MOs here, I thought it worthwhile to bring up. Any thoughts or ideas? --Jayron32 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure; it could be, but I'm getting the same sense that the communication styles aren't quite a fit. The other banned user I can think of is Shakinglord, as I remember at least one of his socks going around creating redirects like Bling Crosby, but that doesn't quite seem like a match either. In short, you might be onto something, but I have the same pangs of doubt as you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem for me isn't really the redirects: it's the addition of nonsensical "similar" words to see also sections, the way that all edit summaries consist exclusively of these chains of mechanically similar words, and that nearly all other edits (stretching back for years with seemingly no break) are completely incomprehensible garbage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Though I haven't currently got the time to go back through the AN/AN/I archives to link to diffs, I've got to say I am struck by the decrease in compassion, empathy, and AGF displayed in this forum. In earlier discussions, while editors and admins were equally conflicted about what the best course of action might be, at least they showed some desire to help this user work within WP policies. Earlier discussions took into account not only Hopiakuta's unknown disabilities, but also the ancient technologies he's forced to use; editors actually tried to conceive of workarounds and assists for him, all with the goal of making it possible for him to continue editing. Now, even though he hasn't been brought up here for a while, he's immediately accused of being a bad-faith user, a vandal, a sock, or some sort of evil entity. His contributions, rather than being viewed through the lens of his own experiences and abilities, are immediately disparaged as "garbage" and "gibberish". Even if these contributions are NOT up to article standards, the fact remains that they are good-faith contributions from a good-faith user; even if we can't keep them, they represent effort on his part (probably more effort than we can even know) and shouldn't be mocked or insulted. I'm not saying Hopiakuta is likely to become a model editor; sadly, I'll even concede that his combined challenges may make it impossible for him to continue editing at all. But there's no reason at all to make hostile assumptions about his intent, nor to disparage or dismiss his efforts at contributing. I believe there's a very strong connection between the kind of baseline hostility level shown here and the slow hemmorhage of established contributors; fortunately for all concerned, I haven't got time to go on about THAT, either. But show some compassion, people. (And Dodoiste, thank you.) GJC 17:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy and Competence is required. Helping out fellow users is laudable, and something I do whenever possible, but we're not here to hold hands or enable the disadvantaged, we're here to build an encyclopedia. If smart people proceeding from a stance of assuming good faith cannot make heads or tails of what an editor is saying, then the editor shouldn't be contributing here, because the net result is indistinguishable from vandalism or trolling. I'm sorry if that's rude or appears to be lacking in compassion, but that's just the way it must be. Our energy needs to go into writing and improving an encyclopedia, not into providing social services to the disabled. If the latter is what one is interested in, there are any number of worthy projects and organizations one can work with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you'll re-read what I posted, you'll find that I did not suggest that anyone "hold hands", "provide social services", or anything else along those lines, nor did I contradict either Wikipedia is not therapy or Competence is required.

What I DID suggest was that we stop implying bad faith, sockpuppetry, vandalism, trollery, malice, Googlebombing, SEO manipulation, and complicity in the downfall of Western civilization; and instead see this for what it is: a good-faith user who, for a combination of reasons, seems unable to make encyclopedic contributions to Wikipedia. I am not saying that we must accept contributions that the majority of readers would find difficult to comprehend; I am not saying that this user should be coddled, babied, or condescended to (in fact, if I recall correctly, that's like a brief catalog of ways to piss this user off.) What I -AM- saying is, just because you don't understand someone, that doesn't mean that person is malicious; it's always better to assume good intentions even if the result falls short of your standards; don't accuse people til you have SOLID evidence; and if you have to "fire" an editor, there's no need to parade along behind him as he leaves, telling him his contributions were "garbage". In other words: be kind. I'm not sure why that's such a difficult thing to do. GJC 07:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please unblock this user. They have been editing in good faith since 2006. Every year or so, a user like ViriiK comes around and starts wondering what is going on without knowing the backstory and tries to get Hopiakuta blocked because the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it. That's very sad, but typical of human nature. Hopiakuta's contribution history shows that the user has made constructive edits for six years now. The "let's block first and then find out what's going on" reaction is really not appropriate. Please do the due diligence. Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-gnoming for half a decade doesn't outweigh... what ever this sort of thing is, sorry. There's a fundamental lack of an capability to communicate here, and it is ridiculous to demand that an entire project bend backwards to cater to one person in this manner. Life sucks. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see that a person who makes easily identifiable & correctable mistakes seriously harms the encyclopedia. I think we are right in trying to be just a little more charitable than the world in general when we can act collectively. It might compensate for the unfortunate tendency of all too many individual Wikipedians to be less friendly than the expectations of that world. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First off, saying "the only way users like ViriiK know how to deal with something strange or different is to eliminate it" is uncalled for. Second, you've made a contradiction: somehow, ViriiK doesn't know the backstory, yet he does this "every year or so?"

If you can explain the situation, I'm all for it, but this isn't exactly helping things. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You're having reading comprehension problems. I said "every year or so, a user like ViriiKnot" does this, not the user does this. Huge difference. This evidence is fully supported by the AN and AN/I reports and block logs. Evidence is neither "uncalled for" nor a personal attack. It might be time for you to look at the block logs and the associated noticeboard reports. That hopiakuta is still blocked speaks volumes about the Wikipedia community, which I'm sad to report, I've lost all respect for. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Straight to the ad-homs, nice. I did miss the like, you're correct; that does not give you license to go straight to the insults. Your comment that was uncalled for was stating that users (and ViriiK in particular) just try to get rid of things that are "different." You weren't discussing evidence, you were just disparaging another user.

As to your comment about your level of respect for "the community:" "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It's directly discussing the evidence—evidence that apparently you refuse to look at when pointed to it. Users like ViriiK have reported hopiakuta over and over again for this same thing, assuming bad faith the entire time, and the reports and blocks show that. There is no ad hominem or insult here at all. It's perfectly obvious you don't give a damn, which is why I have no respect for users like you. You've never commented about the discussion or Hopiakuta at all; instead you've gone on and on about your own personal misinterpretations of what you think someone might have said instead of what was actually said and what the evidence shows. Those type of comments are quite distracting and annoying and pretty much demonstrate the problem with the community. Instead of getting down to brass tacks and investigating the problem, you've created your own. What an incredible waste of time! You're good at generating drama and distracting the discussion, but poor on reading what others are saying and understanding what you've read. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black. I understand, I simply disagree with you. That it drives you to such vitriol & self-proclaimed superiority just tells me you need a break. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you two are done snarking at each other, perhaps we can get back to the question at hand. I strongly believe unblocking Hopiakuta is a good idea, because:
  • They are operating in good faith; comments about SEO or trolling or trying to infect others with Malware are 100% off target
  • Historically, most of their edits have been useful
  • Those that aren't really useful (like some of the recent redirects) are not really harmful either, and can be fixed fairly easily.
  • If you make the effort to understand what Hopiakuta is saying, you will see that they are often correct on the underlying issue
  • If you don't want to make the effort to understand what Hopiakuta is saying, you can ignore them without harming yourself, or the encyclopedia.
  • It's good for us to have some good faith editors with a very non-mainstream approach. Helps avoid groupthink.

I'm not around enough to replace Xeno as a mentor (for lack of a better word), but am willing to look in from time to time, or be pinged by someone with questions. Looks like one or two others in this thread might be willing as well. That seems a better way to go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that unblocking an editor who is simply not able to communicate with others in an understandable manner - as their continued contributions indicate - is beneficial to the project. We are a collaborative project, and without communication, no collaboration is possible.  Sandstein  06:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"...simply not able to communicate with others in an understandable manner..." is an unhelpful exaggeration. If this is your sole rationale for the block, then you should unblock. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I came upon this user's condition and block totally by accident and decided to look into their history. I believe the editors above arguing his case have raised very important points and I agree with them totally. If Wikipedia is a collaborative project, then that means working together as a team to built an encyclopedia, from all experiences and knowledge regardless of disability, ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender, etc. Someone who may not be a "meanstream editor", can certainly bring a different dimension and add something of value to the project, knowledge which others do not possess. Blocking them on the grounds of their limitations (which is exactly what is happening here) is contracdictory to the spirit of Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a therapy, and a certain degree of competency is required, however, this editor seems to have been doing well when he was under the mentorship of Xeno. If other editors who have interacted with him are willing to assist, then I find no justifiable reason for not unblocking this user. To my understanding, "colaboration", in order to build an encyclopedia of knowledge is the spirit of Wiki. Although other policies are very important, they are secondary to what Wiki was originally meant for. I stand corrected if I am wrong in my analysis. And for the record, I undertand exactly what Hopiakuta is saying because I want to know, and have taken the time to understand it. In that regard, I agree pretty much with Floquenbeam. Tamsier (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've been looking over their remarks on their talk page, and I can't make any sense out of it at all. The only thing I can say for sure is that they have not provided a coherent reson they should be unblocked. If they can't or won't do that, even with help, I can't say unblocking them sounds like a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

  Should it be the proper time to restrict access to the talk page by now? He seems to be playing around with it as much as he did to articles and other talk pages.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  No. I'm having a conversation with him, and he's not disrupting anything. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  Only on Wikipedia is communicating with another user considered "disruption". Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think your conversation includes this addition to the section title or whatever these edits concern.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  And, there's nothing wrong with those edits. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose the block. It's not that hard to understand this user. I've been reading through a lot of archives and past discussions for a few hours regarding this user and the problem isn't in his edits, which are usually good, but with his communication. That's the same reason for this block and discussion. From what I can piece together, his problem is antiquated equipment combined with several disabilities. His contribution is mostly redirects which are nearly always kept and is useful. He's been contributing for at least 6 years with over 6000 edits and in that time there have been few incidents taken to this and other noticeboards. He's definitely a benefit to Wikipedia and I don't think the difficulty to communicate with him is a good enough reason, since it's not impossible to piece together what he's saying. Acoma Magic (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I just realized that this user was being debated again to unblock this user. I wasn't informed that Viriditas was questioning why I reported this user. Even though his edit history was odd, I found in his contribution history that he operated malicious websites all of which he had linked here at Wikipedia. They were his own websites that were redirect loops to a malware websites see : [8], [9], [10], [11]. Also his own websites apparently mirrored articles of Wikipedia which if a user on the internet had come across one of his articles, they would have been sent to the malware website. WP:ELNO applies here. He claimed that he doesn't have the expertise to operate them but I find that odd since he still owns those websites and still linked them here recently. If he wants to truly get unblock, he needs to fix his websites first and remove the redirect loops to malware websites. ViriiK (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Support the block. Linking to malware is terrible. Doing it repeatedly with signs that you control the links and/or the malware is absolutely not the kind of behavior that can be tolerated here, even if the editor was perfectly capable of communicating and a big-time large-scale contributor. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm planning on unblocking Hopiakuta in a little while. There is no consensus here for a block, nor for an unblock, and it's just dragging on and on now. Lack of consensus about a block should default to unblock. I have a great deal of respect for Xeno, and believe that if he was still active this whole mess would likely not have happened. Because this is not a case of an inappropriate block, I'll agree to "own" the unblock, and will keep an eye on Hopiakuta's contributions, and will step in if necessary. It is possible a future block might become necessary, but I hope not. I think the accusations of intentional linking to malware are seriously uncool, but agree that links to that page shouldn't be re-added, accidental though it may have been (see Hopiakuta's explanation on his talk page). --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• One of the diffs mentioned above is mine. That may have been my first interaction with them, and I did call that 'gibberish'; in the context of its place, an article talk page, I believe (and still do) that it was justified to revert. If memory serves me right, I tried to engage the user on their (a?) talk page--one of the ones with a really long name, and I can't find it in the history of the 'regular' talk page. I talked this over with Floquenbeam as well, and concluded that I personally couldn't make heads or tails of it and that, as long as the user wasn't making such odd edits in mainspace, that I should leave it alone, which I did, and that if I didn't understand something it isn't necessarily the other party that's at fault. I don't understand the antiquated machinery argument--but that came from Xeno, whom I consider to be older and wiser than me. Floq, you probably mentioned the word "mentoring" in those conversations as well. I know little or nothing about malware and will leave that to the experts--in the meantime, I don't think this is something the community can't handle in other ways than blocking and am content with Floq's unblock. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• < http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=user_talk:hopiakuta&diff=505044401&oldid=505030811 >.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 06:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

don't know how anyone can even pretend they are able to have a coherent conversation with this user. If Floq is somehow able to parse some meaning out of this cryptic weirdndes, I hope they are ready to act as a translator so that those of us that can find no meaning whatsoever in the majority of this users comments are not left wondering how they translate into some sort of understandable English. This is a collaborative project. It is difficult to colanorate with someone who is basically speaking their own language and often seems not to have even read comments before replying to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is likely quite true, as even my grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling, et al, are completely different, & I never read anything on this page, as I cannot; I am incapable.

• the “love point” (point d’amour: )
• the “certitude point” (point de conviction: )
• the “authority point” (point d’autorité: )
• the “acclamation point” (point d’acclamation: )
• the “doubt point” (point de doute: )

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 07:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Whereas this is internet, I do opt for « cryptic wiredness » & rather than « colanorate », I do try to « colonorate » with this okole cabal.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 08:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

So you edit with "cryptic wiredness" by choice? The okole cabal is not pleased.--Atlan (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to malware, says he is "incapable" of reading this page but responds to posts here anyway, and states that he's trying to be difficult to understand... why are we still debating this? I'm sympathetic to those with disabilities, but this is just intentional trolling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do find that ψ is on the punctuation page; but, does not link to irony_punctuation, which does amount to its own ψ. Anyhow, you do pretend to not comprehend the ψ that in each very accusation comment, you contradict that accusation with other evidence.

I have not crossed much more ocean than to drown, so, therefore, I only, likely, know American English, which, I think, is devoid of « weirdndes  », « colanorate  », as is this website, other than this webpage. Please do quit the pretense.

I am not capable of your « ...grammar, punctuation, syntax, spelling, et al,... » which I have said, is true, & is ψ.

I have no idea how to create malware @ all. What I know about these machines is entirely by trial & error, except that, a few times, people have shown me where is the electric power button, as well as some of the other relatively tiny minuscule elements of operation.

Your sympathetic is certainly stated in the further irony.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I...what? Look, I'm sympathetic to how annoying and sometimes error-prone disability-accomodating software and such can be. Something like that could explain the formatting, the weird linking habits, etc. But The complete lack of sense in these comments alarms me. I just looked over your most recent article edits, Hopiakuta, and it looks to me like those (and their edit summaries) don't make much more sense than your talk comments. Now that Floq has unblocked you, you need to really, really make an effort here - and again, I acknowledge that that might be a pain in the ass to do, depending on what technical accommodations you use - to make yourself understandable. As much as many people are willing to accommodate and help you, we can only do that if you give us something to work with. If you remain incomprehensible to all but two or three people on the entire project, the good we're assuming you can do here is going to end up outweighed by the fact that no one can make sense of the good. P.S. Your signature is sort of a disaster...any chance you're willing to neaten it up so it's shorter and links more prominently to your userpage and talkpage? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I know that millions, even billions, like to call disabled troll; but, much like my opinion of niggerhead, kike, et al, I do interpret it as equally racist,...... handicappist, handicappism. Each of these can, only, be justified either by linguistic commentary or by a truly excellent pun.

Also, I have, accurately, stated my name for six years, including @: user_talk:hopiakuta/editnotice.

hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 15:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheoA/Three.js

This user page contains mainspace categories that goes against WP:USERNOCAT. Because the page title ends with .js it generates the user page as a javascript page so I'm unable to edit and remove the categories. --Mika1h (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Has the thought even crossed your mind of asking them about it or at least informing them you were asking for admin intervention? Beeblebrox (talk)|

Who is "them"? --Mika1h (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheoA, of course. dangerouspanda 17:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a notice on the talk page. --Mika1h (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you discuss the issue with them first, before coming here so that they could fix it? AN/ANI are last resort, after you have attempted to resolve it with the user first dangerouspanda 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: and the last post on their talkpage was June 26. That said, they have not edited since June 19 dangerouspanda 17:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind then, I didn't realize this was a major issue that needs discussion. P.S. Why are you all using plural form, it's confusing. --Mika1h (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S I had left a notice on User talk:TheoA/Three.js. --Mika1h (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Always best to discuss on their usertalk, not the the subpage talk. Oh, and "they" (and therefore "their") is singular. dangerouspanda 17:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No, "they" and "their" take plural verbs; use "he" or "she" or "s/he" or something like that if you want to have subject-verb agreement. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The subpage in question is the original source of an article draft (looks like it was copy/pasted to an actual article). As such, the subpage can be deleted. Of course, I can't add the MFD tag :-) dangerouspanda 17:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need yet another noticeboard (WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Don't snap at me, or WP:ANDSAM?) where people can ask for simple admin help with something, without being accused of dragging someone else to AN or ANI. AN or ANI should be a last resort for conflicts, but don't land so hard on the guy for asking for simple admin help here. He's not trying to get TheoA in trouble. When I run across article categories in userspace drafts, I usually comment them out myself, and leave a note for the editor, rather than asking the editor to do it themselves. No discussion needed, and no editor has ever complained about this. All Mika1h is asking is an admin to do something he would usually do himself, but can't because the userspace draft is accidentally marked as a .js page. I'm sure he'll leave the explanatory note on TheoA's talk page if an admin will do the commenting out. --Floquenstein's monster (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I note that the user in question has removed the text; I think we're fine here :). I agree with Floquenstein that we need to get a lot better at assuming good faith of the people who bring issues to AN. Now, I understand why AN and ANI are places of last resort - practically-speaking, it's because they're hellish, dark, satanic mills filled with snark being used as an area denial weapon. But at least part of that stems from people telling users off for bringing other contributors to these venues - perhaps if people were nicer about it, their reason for being annoyed by it would partly solve itself? Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

SPI Fix

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

---

I opened an SPI and right after I did it I realized that I had not opened under the sockmaster's user name but rather one of his old sockpuppets. I'm not sure if I can just move the stuff over and set the old case to 'closed' or if it even makes a difference. Can someone who understands SPI better than I please fix this if necessary? The SPI is currently listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Thonos but should be at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Giornorosso. Thanks! Sædon^talk 08:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I moved it over and did a histmerge. Pretty sure it's all good now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw that, thank you :). Sædon^talk 22:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning

Unresolved

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § About Niemti

• HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Niemti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Original ban discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Ban proposed

User:Niemti was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of User:HanzoHattori, having acknowledged in the SPI that they were said user. However, looking over the SPI archive for him, I note an extreme amount of fishing and likely false reports on other users, which makes me suspicious of anything included in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of HanzoHattori that is based on "behavioral" evidence. One example of a perplexing case is User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog, where they were blocked because of this edit. I'm sorry, but how does that confirm anything?

Anyways, i've worked with Niemti before and he was of tremendous help on the Kony 2012 article, doing a ton of work on it. He's stated here on his talk page that he no longer has access to the Hanzo account from four years ago, so what would be the proper method of appealing the ban? Should he just do it on the Niemti talk page? Silverseren^C 01:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Re "Captain Obvious": I think the username was the big tip-off there. I seem to recall that HH had less than cordial relations with one User:Estlandia, who once went by the handle "Miacek and his crime-fighting dog". The username was clearly intended to mock. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe this to be an accident made by a careless admin or a purposeful plot against Niemti by one of the user's enemies? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Whoa, no, i'm not saying that, just that some of those checkuser cases in the past (all of which appear to have been initiated by different people) might have been hasty and relied too much on "behavioral evidence". That's kind of a criticism I have for the checkuser system in general though. But i'm more concerned about what Niemti's next step is, because he's a good editor and has done a lot of good work. Silverseren^C 01:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, not punish. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't see what this is preventing here. Silverseren^C 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good editing. Acoma Magic (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Silverseren, the best venue for the discussion would be at WP:AN. Since they were banned via a comminity discussion, the un-ban would be done the same way. You could ask the user to put together a request for un-ban and it could be copied over to WP:AN for review. -- Dianna (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can this be moved to WP:AN then? Silverseren^C 05:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Niemti should prepare a statement first, asking to be un-banned. I will post on their user talk, and see if they would do that, and someone could copy it over to AN for them. Not me, though; I am tired and will be logging off in a minute. -- Dianna (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No just block him, Niemti is threatening me again and again that he will block me and has a rude behaviour just because I did a mistake once. He doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Please I appeal you to block him and somebody please remove those block warnings from my talk page. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you keep quiet for the time being, MegaCyanide. The quickest perusal of your talk page showed things like "I am not talking about you I am talking about Niemti that idiot of a buffoon", from you. That's a clear personal attack, and if you continue to complain about the behaviours of other editors on this board, it might boomerang on you. OohBunnies! (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I don't take your word for it, considering this personal attack (and this) you made on his talk page. You seem to have been far more rude than he ever was. Silverseren^C 04:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to propose an unblock and unban of HanzoHattori, then do it. All this talking here is going to do nothing. Personally, if we have allowed this user to continue editing while banned, then why not unban him? We'll just re-hash all that has gone on before again. --MuZemike 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support any unblock, personally. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know if I would support an unblock yet, but I would be willing to consider it as it has been 4 years, it sounds like his contribs are decent, his claim that he forgot his password is plausible and a reason to overlook "block evasion" (which he is technically guilty of). If he requests it, this would be consistent with my goals assuming the accounts were linked and the community had a chance to discuss the merits. Blocks are pretty cheap nowadays. I always say to forgive in the same manner you want to be forgiven. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Exactly, Dennis. And the fellow is spending 90% of his time editing articles, which is very high, and have done lots of good gnomish work. I helped with copy edits at Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, an article they have contributed to extensively. Browsing through their talk page and user talk page edits, I don't see any evidence of the confrontational behaviour that got them banned in the long-ago. Four years is a long time, and it looks like their behaviour has changed. We can't afford to throw valuable contributors away over technicalities. I would support an unban motion. I am going to move this discussion to the AN board, which is the usual venue for these motions. -- Dianna (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Something to consider: this is the thread that discussed the block. I didn't participate at the time, but that proposal was only discussed for just over 13 hours (which I don't consider to be sufficient, but eh.) Maybe someone could check with Nietmi? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm sure as this discussion drags on, there'll be plenty of bystanders weighing in with this basic sentiment: "Support indefinite block/ban. I don't care how good his contributions have been; they were done through evading a community-imposed ban, which demonstrates a flagrant disregard for Wikipedia policy. If he wishes to be unbanned, he may submit an appeal to the Arbitration Committee." To that I say, phooey! It may be the six or seventh most popular website in the world, but it's still just a website — it's not like he committed a felony offense. We don't mete out justice here on Wikipedia. Sure, he behaved like a bit of an @sshole back then, he didn't get along very well with people, and the community eventually got tired of it and told him to begone. This was in February 2008, over four years ago. He came back, dropped all connections to his old account (AFAIK), and is now a collaborative and productive member of our community. Unless someone provides hard evidence that his presence is counterproductive to the collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia, I'm very firmly opposed to blocking the Niemto account. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally get that, but what about the precedent this would set? Every WP:LTA headcase will start trying to do the same thing. Some of them have been banned just as long. This is why we don't let people sneak in through the back door like this. the fact that he got caught is also telling. Of he had never returned to old habbits no one would have even suspected socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I figured someone would make the argument that it'd set a bad precedent. I think HanzoHattori is different from most of the people on LTA, though — he hasn't been leading a sockpuppet crusade against Wikipedia for the purpose of exhausting the patience of any admin who has the misfortune of cleaning up after him. What got him banned wasn't his idiosyncratic editing manner, it was his disregard for the concept of being polite. I've not seen any evidence that he retains said issue, so to me the point is moot. I stand by my above comments. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It's just a website, so what's the big deal that he can't edit it, why should we bend over backwards for him? If he really wants to come back, play by the same rules as everyone else: fulfill the obligations needed to satisfy the Standard Offer. If ihe doesn't want to do that, let him find something else to do with his time -- it's just a website, after all, and no one has a right to edit it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, some users cannot bear to part with the website, and that's a fact. That's OK. If he gets unbanned/unblocked, I'm sure we will be discussing numerous ANI incidents, culminating with another ban proposal, within a year. Then, a couple of years later, the community will consider another unban/unblock. Wash, rinse, and repeat. --MuZemike 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. People do change, after all (especially if they're relatively young; teenagers can have a totally different personality within less than a year's time, from what I've seen). I have yet to be presented with recent evidence that Niemto is rude or abrasive towards other people. In fact, all I've seen from viewing his recent contributions are constructive edits and a pleasant (if blunt and slightly sardonic) demeanour. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am not sure if he would be blocked or unblocked, so I will remain neutral. I think the last time he edited before the Niemti account was 194.145.185.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has the same problem of incivility and tendaticidous editing, as well as the same interests in articles such as the Mortal Kombat series, the Soul Calibur series and the Max Payne series (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#We've got a serious problem here...). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm always reading comments on the problem of editor retention. Can a brave admin just unblock him so time and valuable edits can stop being wasted? Acoma Magic (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the comments above, I believe an unblock/unban proposal is needed in order to reach consensus. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Unblock/unban

• Support As proposer. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I do have to agree that by today's standards the original ban discussion was inadequate, nut it appears they were already blocked at that point anyway. If the IP identified above was the same user, I cannot support unblocking at this time despite the "reformed" sock account. I would say WP:OFFER. They have proven they are capable of making good edits, but it also seems like they have yet to put aside the troubles of their past. The total between the socks considered confirmed and those that were just suspected is 27, if even half of those are accurate that is too much to just look the other way on this one. If they can just walk away and not sock at all for a few months I think the community would be more accepting of an unblock.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - What's the point of walking away for a few months? If his edits were disruptive, then that would be the correct remedy. However, his edits have been constructive and a ban from Wikipedia for a few months wouldn't improve Wikipedia. Bans are supposed to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Whereas a ban of this user for a few months is just punishment. Acoma Magic (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Offer, per Beeblebrox. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree with the concerns by Beeblebrox, we should give them the standard offer. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I don't see anything preventative about this block, just punitive action based on past socking. The point is, if this sort of thing happened more often with people that socked, namely, they returned with a new account, made tons of productive edits, and didn't exhibit the tendencies that got them blocked before, then I would be all for not blocking them. The whole point of the block system is to get rid of unproductive editors who are, in some way, harming the encyclopedia. If this fact is no longer true, then I don't see the purpose of blocking them any longer. At this point, even with using the standard offer, we would be harming the encyclopedia far more than we would be helping it. Silverseren^C 21:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the standard offer six months length isn't set in stone, per the Variations section. It is completely within policy and even within OFFER for us to decide to unblock now. Silverseren^C 21:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support immediate, unconditional unblock. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Note: I've left a note at JBW's talk (the blocking admin.), but judging from comments on his talk page - he may be off-line for a while. Chedzilla (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The persistent incivility and disruptive nature of this user, in addition to the admitted intention to continue socking and ignore our rules, clearly indicates this user is a net negative to the encyclopaedia. To unblock him now as a result of his further socking would send the wrong signal, "socking can you get you unblocked", to other users, making a mockery of our rules. Nanobear (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The persistent incivility and disruptive nature of this user, doesn't apply to his edits regarding this current account. This encyclopaedia is for the reader, not for admins to be offended if people don't follow their rulings. Therefore he is a net positive to Wikipedia; I can't see anything negative he brings to Wikipedia. People edit Wikipedia because they enjoy it, they're not going to stop because of a piece of text on their account reading "blocked". When people don't learn their lesson and continue editing disruptively from various accounts, block those accounts. However, when they edit constructively then what is accomplished from blocking? The wiki rules aren't sacred or holy, they exist to improve Wikipedia. WP:Ignore all rules. Acoma Magic (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that's something from two years ago, right? And, amusingly, the sockpuppet statement isn't followed by the usual reasoning, but the reasoning that he's going to make new accounts to continue writing new articles and improving the encyclopedia. I'm perfectly fine with that. If only all sockpuppetters followed that reasoning. Silverseren^C 22:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support unblock/unban By all accounts, the editor is peaceably improving articles. Let's not loose sight of the forest for the trees, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to uphold a set of rules. Remember: We don't have a lot of spare hands. If he's willing to avoid past mistakes (and I'd suspect he'd be watched for a while) then jeez, why not?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Acoma Magic's second comment. When we ban someone for problematic behavior and find that the behavior in question has ceased, we're cutting off our nose to spite our face if we prohibit that person from contributing positively. Let's watch HH/Niemti to ensure that the civility issues do not return, but unless that happen, no complaints. Nyttend (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox and (wait for it...) Acoma Magic's second comment. This is why we have the standard offer (and yes, at a reduced time, say 60 days), and I think there would be support and forgiveness if he went that route. However, as much as I want to bring back constructive people back into the fold, I am aware that if I condone or reward socking, even if they are doing good things, I am encouraging it and I will see more of it, with the socks using this as a justification. We can't do this. I can be open minded about forgiving it after the 60 days, but it is in our collective best interest if we don't reward socking today and make them wait at least a token period. I think if you work SPI a few weeks, you will understand why. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You would be encouraging people who have been blocked to return to Wikipedia in a constructive way. Vandals, trolls and POV pushers already disregard the wiki rules. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. At first I was a little confused, by after reading Acoma Magic's second comment, I must say that supporting this unblock is the right thing to do. If a blocked editor wishes to improve Wikipedia, and if consensus allows it, it is an admins duty to unblock for the improvement of Wikipedia. Here, I think it is a wise choice to unblock, as both standard offer apply and the editor has made substantial contributions as well. The only problems are the some admins do not want to make a fool of themselves "rewarding" socking. I have to say, the editor has shown good behavior in the past, and if he 'misbehaves" again (I don't see how he could, he isn't a troll or POV pusher) then you can just block him again. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to Strong Support: per Wehwalt. Interested in comments by both the user and JBW tomorrow. Chedzilla (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC) (edited to "Strong" support per users statement on his talk page - listed below) Chedzilla (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose You betray the communities trust. You evade your block and make mostly useful edits. That is a nice start but it is the simplest thing in the world to accept the standard offer - apologize - and get back to work. I know that sitting quietly behind a keyboard and never having to react to an actual human makes it seem like this isn't a community worth acknowledging but that isn't true. MarnetteD | Talk 04:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be a devil's advocate here, from looking at the original ban proposal back in February 2008, while there was some support for a ban, I don't know if that was enough support there, even given our higher standards of enacting one now. Obviously, there was a bit of support (just without the "support/oppose" !votes), but the timeframe seems a bit rushed. That means that betrayal of the community's trust is fairly low if there was only a small amount of support for the ban. (Though, from my early Wikipedia experiences in 2008 and 2009, ban proposals didn't seem as structured as they seem now, and they're still not terribly that strictly structured.) --MuZemike 07:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Until the user themselves makes an unban and unblock request, there is nothing to discuss. No other user has standing to make such a request.  Sandstein  07:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

He obviously wants to be unblocked. There's no point in throwing away our current progress in this proposal because of a technicality. Acoma Magic (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Look, if he comes back and takes advantage, I'll be the first to kick him in the ribs - hell, I'll be happy to make the block myself. But based on his contributions I've got no reason to think he won't be productive. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I never encountered HattoriHanzo, but I've edited alongside Niemti (and also come under personal attack from MegaCyanide666 on my own talk page, FYI and their edits have always been solid and constructive, especially in the area of improving grammar and formatting, something a lot of articles are hurting for.Euchrid (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I remember Niemti editing some articles on my watchlist (I'll have to recheck which). Does this mean if the ban on HH stands, his sock's edits will have to be reverted?--Eaglestorm (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits by socks only get reverted if they're not constructive, unless the person is a long term vandal, then it'll get reverted without even checking the edits. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, WP:DENY encourages people to obliterate all edits by users violating bans, the better to disincentivise ban evasion. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's only for vandalism though. Acoma Magic (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds is right. Precisely why I heartily ignore whenever it conflicts with WP:DENY, since it's just an essay. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support (unbanning user) - I've have never encountered HanzoHattori (for obvious reasons), but Niemti and I have edited similar articles. The user is definitely productive and is also a good vandal-fighter. See nothing really disruptive - the HH incident was, how many years ago? CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 08:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - What evidence do we have that Niemti is HanzoHattori? Did an unban request come from the HanzoHattori account? Has anyone bothered to confirm with the banned user that this is actually him? I don't see the connection apart from some questionable behavioral evidence as laid out by SilverSeren, and suspect we're being trolled. In any case, even if the user is HanzoHattori, I oppose an unban because for one thing, he says he's quitting straight away, and for another thing, the terms of the standard offer were not met. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement from user's talk

Hi, I've already stated pretty much all I wanted at [12] and I'd rather not start writing any kind of a tl;dr rant about it. Regarding past, I don't even quite remember what had happened 4 years ago and don't really want to recall (it was probably some embarrassing Internet drama that would make me roll my eyes about it nowadays). I don't have any emotional or other attachment to the old account, it's like an ancient history to me, and I'd rather rather talk about my current activity which is more relevant I think.

Also the truth is I actually wanted (want) to take some kind of a vacation from Wikipedia anyway, like to post an inactive tag here and log off, log in infrequently. I'm wasting way too much time, it's like an addiction; also, like Klimov once said about his films, I did pretty much everything that I wanted to, at this moment anyway. Minus the stuff that I didn't even want to touch, because it's just too much work. (And so the only thing I'd immediately do it would be to revert back a bunch of totally ridicalous reverts "identified as vandalism" by a "brony" who has retaliated this way for my removal of his non-notable My Little Pony'crossover fanfiction story during my cleanup of the Fallout series article.) For example I realized that I almost don't even play video games anymore, I just write about them on Wikipedia, not to mention personal life and work. So I'm not even all that mad about it. --Niemti (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• copied from User talk:Niemti by Chedzilla (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I reverted those reverts; some had already been undone. Acoma Magic (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• User now unblocked after discussion with blocking admin. — Ched :  ?  08:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be much less active now, which is what I planned anyway. --Niemti (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Laughable

The ban of the original account was in place for 2 years, with the editor socking thereafter. The unban discussion here pretty clearly showed no consensus to unban, yet he was unblocked anyway. How is this a correct way to undo a 2 year old community ban? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone at least remove the banned tag from the original account and redirect it to his current account? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a cpmpletely bizzarre result. I can't say I see the strong consensus that would normally be expected to overturn a ban, and it seems the user in question doesn't really care and plans to quit anyway, meaning the entire discussion was a waste of time. This is why unban discussions are usually initiated by the banned user themselves instead of relying on conjecture and assumptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree also - the discussion was only open 12 hours and I don't see a community consensus to unblock here - I would also have opposed under the conditions of this discussion - Youreallycan 17:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The ban of the original account was 4 and a half years ago. It's correct, per Wehwalt, we're here to build an encyclopaedia, not uphold a set of rules. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion may have value - but then the unblock is not a community unblock of a community ban , its an admin WP:IAR unblock - Youreallycan 17:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

5 admins are fine with the unblock. Acoma Magic (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Acoma Magic, you created your account less than 30 days ago yet show impressive knowledge of how Wikipedia works. What other accounts have you had prior to this one? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A month ago I didn't know much about how Wikipedia works. I've spent most of my time on Wikipedia reading rather than editing. For instance I spent about 3 hours reading through stuff to do with User:Hopiakuta but I only wrote a paragraph. Acoma Magic (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You do understand though, Acoma, that such an uncanny knowledge of Wikipedia for somebody so new will arouse suspicion from people. Your fourth edit was to ITN/C, and you managed to discover the incidents noticeboard a mere four days after creating your account. You quickly learned how to undo an edit, as well as how to access the Wikimedia toolserver, both of which are quite technically advanced for someone who just registered an account on Wikipedia for the first time. Now bear in mind, I'm not making any assumptions — there is such a thing as someone simply being a very fast learner, and I suspect you are of a brighter mindset than the average Joe. But by that same token, please understand that I do have a certain degree of skepticism towards the notion that this is, in fact, your first account on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt until I'm presented with evidence that you are not a good faith contributor; thus far, you seem like a force for good. That's all I really care about. :) Master&Expert (Talk) 07:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Urgh. There's no way this was the proper procedure for undoing a community ban, consensus or not (and I agree that there's no way 12 hours on AN and a quick note on the blocking admin's talk constitutes consensus anyway). This doesn't reflect at all well on the unblocking admin, who can hardly be trusted not to summarily overturn future community bans on the same basis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. One admin isn't able to undo a community ban. Bans can only be reversed by community consensus or by ArbCom. The unblock was out if process and should be reinstated. And the discussion above still shows no consensus for reversing the ban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

A. B. Colton

I've currently got a text file with an article on A. B. Colton; however, I cannot create A. B. Colton. It isn't protected it appears to be on a blacklist of sorts. I also can't create User:Ryan Vesey/A. B. Colton. What is my best solution. Can an administrator make it so I can create the page? Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that I can't create it because colton appears at MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that colton was added to the page by MuZemike with this edit. I left a note on his talk page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Created the userspace page for you. Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, I removed the entry from the blacklist, as I know why I added it, and the abuse regarding that entry is no longer there. --MuZemike 07:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Corey Cogdell

Good morning chaps - it seems there is a bit of a kerfuffle brewing on the old social networks about this young lady and her prediliction for shooting zebras - a few extra pairs of eyes on the article might not go amiss, there's already been a couple of rather nasty comments inserted. Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

The India-Pakistan case is supplemented as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Unblock requests being handled by non-administrators

Hi, folks. I was not able to quickly find an answer to this question: is there a policy/guideline/consensus that precludes non-administrators from handling unblock requests? I've seen an increasing number handling them. Given the often-controversial nature of blocks, this struck me as odd. NTox · talk 19:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's probably not ok. Do you have any specific examples? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-admins may not directly act on unblock requests. Period. The instructions on the unblock request are pretty clear. They may comment in some cases, but not action. Some examples would be beneficial dangerouspanda 19:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And so the unblock/unban request in the above threads would not be valid then. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with that statement, Penguin. dangerouspanda 19:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Non admins can't unblock. A consensus of people that includes people other than admins might direct a block to be overriden, but without admin rights, they can't "directly" act. -- Avanu (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I proposed the unblock request for User: Niemti. I am very sorry, I thought that anyone could propose unblocking on a discussion page. I have done this before in the past, so those requests should be overutrned as well. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Robby - we are talking about users requesting to be unblocked on their own talk page, not editor X proposing that editor Y is unblocked on a notice board. GiantSnowman 19:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, the question is whether non-admins are permitted to edit an {{unblock}} request template to set it to "declined" status -- which is all they could possibly do, since they do not have the buttons to physically perform an unblock. This would be similar to non-admins closed an AfD as "keep" -- except that policy never permits it. Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, non-admins should not set an unblock template to declined or otherwise. Besides engaging with the blocked user, the only other thing a non-admin should be permitted to do is remove obvious trolling or abuse of the unblock template, then report the user to an administrator if the user talk page needs protecting. Ol' Willy probably isn't serious about his requests. — Moe ε 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Reading this, a part of me wishes I had written down some of the recent cases I have run in to. In any case, here is one from today, which prompted this thread. NTox · talk 19:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the user in question about this thread. GiantSnowman 19:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Now I see (*facepalm* -.-). That does look very bad, only an admin should close an unblock request. Just a general question, can a non-admin inform an admin of an unblock request? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, your example is inappropriate. Obviously, it was made in good faith; but the non-admin editor should be encouraged to engage with the blocked user if they like (as they did in the comments following the unblock request), and not act on the unblock request itself. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My closing of that unblock request was erronous (in that case), but I think that non-sysops should be permitted to close unblock requests is obvious (such as at AfD). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

[EC] I've changed around the signature on the Explorationofspace talk page from Ebe123 to mine — I agree with the unblock rationale that Ebe gave, so it's my hope that my signature as an admin will resolve this specific issue. I see no reason for nonadmins closing unblock requests, since unlike AFDs, they're always contentious. Conversely, I see no reason for objecting to the idea of non-admin informing admin of unblock request; it can be done wrongly (e.g. WP:CANVASS), but we should permit the practice itself. Nyttend (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with non-admins declining or removing unblock requests that tell someone (usually the blocking admin) to go fuck themselves with a knife or threaten to murder an entire family, and I'm fine with non-admins procedurally declining unblocks from AE and CU blocks. Beyond that, I'd rather only admins handle the request itself; I'm more than happy if a non-admin wants to comment on some aspect of the block to give context or engage the blocked user, but ultimately I think an admin should be handling the request itself. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Or those that say "I want to continue Spam Wars!" ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, those too. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The instances mentioned here as qualifying for NAC would, in most instances, require further admin attention; i.e. the locking of the blocked user's talk. With the unblock request acted upon the page is removed from the dashboard. Perhaps there should be a closer examination of this situation. Tiderolls 20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

When I think talkpage editing access should be revoked, I go to the blocking admin's talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but an extra step. Tiderolls 21:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I do go to the talk page already. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an extra step whether the unblock request is actioned or not. Again, it's your time. If you want to notify admins of talk page abuse, go for it. My point is that we have a process in place to handle the situation. Tiderolls 21:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What should I do? Get an RfA in 1 hour? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Catch the 100 bug while you can! NTox · talk 22:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll cool down about this before. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There is no such thing as a NAC of an unblock request. Non-admins can not decline an unblock request because it implies they would also have been able to accept it, and that's not the case. If the unblock request is an obscenity-laced attack, it can be reverted just like any other vandalism. 64.40.54.127 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Very good point. Thanks for the reminder; I don't know why nobody else thought (or spoke of thinking) of treating obvious bad-faith requests like the vandalism that they are. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Non-admins can not decline an unblock request because it implies they would also have been able to accept it, and that's not the case." I don't think that's the case. Some editors close AfD (I used to close MfD) discussions without being able to delete them. Some people do treat them like vandalism, although most just decline it and some others put {{Unblock abusive}}. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You're not permitted to use {{unblock abusive}} because it clearly states "an administrator has reviewed this request and identified it as abusive", which you're not. Indeed, all unblock closing templates say the same thing. dangerouspanda 17:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not stating "I", but stating different groups of people, including sysops. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The only thing being an "admin" means is that we have the tools to action accepted unblocks. There is no reason that any uninvolved editor in good standing should't be able to perform an action that doesn't require the sysop bit; and indeed I've seen non-admin editors with significantly more common sense than some of my fellow sysops. :) Me included. Restricting such mundane things on the principle of an RFA is silly and simply enforces the elitest "us and them" attitude that currently exists between some admins and editors. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Admins are vested with not only technical tools but also responsibilities to go along with them, it isn't about being "better" or "elitist". There should never at any time be any such thing as a "non-admin unblock decline", and if I ever happen to see one I'd revert in a heartbeat. Tarc (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

RFA is a political process that serves to make sure someone is not going to go "batshit" crazy with sysop tools. The idea that this comes with "great responsibility" (beyond the expectation of not going mad) is a faux elitism that is one of the reasons our community is so dysfunctional. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than obvious vandalism, non-admins shouldn't decline or remove unblock request. If you aren't allowed to accept it (and non-admins are incapable of it), they aren't allowed to decline it, either. Obviously bad-faith requests are the exception to this rule; it may, some times, make more sense to decline those than remove them, and if it clearly is one of these cases, a non-admin should be able to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I take a very limited view of what actions that don't require the tools should be restricted to admins. Just because a non-admin lacks the ability to action a request if decided one way, doesn't mean they should be restricted in actioning that request if the result is one they don't need the tools for. That said, I would still make an exception for unblock requests, as a blocked editor has very limited avenues to appeal a block, and can't just go to AN/I to request the non-admin unblock decline be reviewed. Being blocked is a serious thing, and deserves review by an actual admin in response to the unblock request. Monty₈₄₅ 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think there's an important part here: if a non-admin closes an abusive, repetetive, or otherwise wildly non-compliant unblock request, it removes it from the queue, and therefore may not be seen by an admin who can take the proper action in locking the talkpage, extending the block, etc. dangerouspanda 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• In the period before I was an administrator, I would not have considered it appropriate for me to close an unblock request on a user talkpage. However, at times I would comment on the merits of the request, or when it seemed clear to me that the block was unwarranted, post to ANI urging that admins take a look at the unblock request promptly (rather than have it sit unattended in the queue until someone happened to get to it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• There's no problem with anyone commenting on an unblock request, but except for cases of obvious bad faith only admins should actually be declining or accepting them. The reason for that is simply that admins are vetted by the community and, as has been pointed out, only an admin can actually take any real action to unblock or harden the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox There's nothing wrong with commenting on an unblock request. In fact, if an editor is thinking of applying for admin status in the future, it would be good practice to think about how you would close the request. A comment, starting with "I am not an admin, so can neither accept nor reject this request, but I think the request should be accepted/rejected for the following reasons..." would be helpful for multiple reasons. If the admin concurs that the rationale is fine, then the admin can copy the wording, or refer to it and accept or reject faster than otherwise. If the admin agrees with the proposed close, but not the rationale, or disagrees with the proposed close, the admin can use it as a teaching moment. If the unblock request is deficient, as many are, and the non-admin points out the shortcomings, then the blocked editor has more time to work on a proper requests. However, as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out the request should not be closed, as that removes it from the queue. (Just now read comment from Newyorkbrad, agree with that as well.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the rule here is that applies here is: "Never accept a 'no' from someone who isn't empowered to say 'yes.'" Although this would be sort of the reverse: don't say no unless you are empowered to say yes. Determining consensus at an AFD is not the same as unilaterally declining an unblock.--v/r - TP 21:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Determining consensus at an AfD" is an admin-only task as well. If there is even a question as to the possible close then NAC is inappropriate. As to the matter at hand, the words "This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request" don't seem especially ambiguous to me, and I'd advise Ebe123 of informing the community in advance if he decides to take the NAC concept and extend it to impersonating an administrator in random other areas of the project in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Eyes on Syria

Could we have a few more eyes on Syria and related articles? Obviously there's quite the dispute about them at the moment in real life, and a couple of users (one whose entire talkpage just says "FREE SYRIA!" have managed to slowly edit war in their preferred infobox with no consensus on the talkpage (and most of those reverts, along with others, were without edit summaries). As well as steady admin hands, a few more opinions on talk wouldn't go amiss either. CMD (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Persian Gulf / Arabian Gulf edits

Occasionally, someone will edit an article solely to change Persian Gulf to Arabian Gulf or vice-versa. I've read some of the controversy in various places here, but it's kind of scattered so it's unclear whether there was a clear consensus. Is there a policy as to what to do about these, if anything? I imagine that a revert will almost certainly start a (brief) edit war if the user is paying attention. Of course, it might happen anyway if anyone else is paying attention :) (2nd try - is this the right place?) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The only relevant rule I can think of is "use common English". In this case, this would apparently imply using "Persian Gulf" or simply "the Gulf" in most situations, depending on context, as the "Arabian Gulf" usage has apparently not gained much currency outside the Arab world itself. I'm aware some editors have invested the issue with a very overblown ideological significance, spending a lot of time arguing why "Arabian Gulf" is historically wrong and evil and why its use must not only be avoided but actively deprecated, but that's really nonsensical and beside the point. What counts is just established usage in English. I don't think we've ever had any kind of formalized decision procedure over it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article is at Persian Gulf. Articles should link directly to the other article, and very rarely is there good reason to pipelink a proper name with another proper name. Any disputes about what to call the entity being talked about, in this case the Gulf, should be discussed at that page, and solved at that page. This isn't explicit in any policy, but seems a logical way to preserve NPOV and consistency. There is a precedent; Sea of Japan, which is called that throughout the wiki (although there is an odd clause to note it's also called the East Sea on articles specifically relating to Korea). CMD (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just removed some pipelinks today which seemed to be pov (on another subject entirely). Piping shouldn't be done as a way to get around an article's name. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirected talk pages for deletion

I just looked at some sample NA-class articles from WP:BIO project, and they all look to me like talk pages of redirects. As far as I know, it is pointless to tag those within projects; and some I noted have improper classifications (as stubs and such). If there is a small number of articles that should be retained (and off the top of my head I cannot think of what could be classified as NA, which seems like a pointless use for a blank page classification), a deeper review may be needed, but as things stand, I'd be tempted to say that this entire category is due for a mass deletion, and we should probably look at other NA-class articles, with anything tagged as NA in the future coming up for a review for speedy deletion alert (or, if nobody can present any arguments for keeping this category, simply coming up for speedy deletion). PS. To be clear: I am not suggesting we delete the redirects, just their talk pages, which are useless and falsely inflate the article counts for WikiProjects. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Some projects like to keep track of redirects incase someone changes it to redirect elsewhere or incase someone puts it up for deletion. The project tags often work in conjunction with automated bots to warn the project that this has happened. As such some projects do very much rely on these even if you find them useless. I would also note NA pages can also be anything that isn't ranked by the project in question as it stands for Non-Article. For example in a project I am involved with anything that isn't an article gets tagged NA. Such as templates, images, project pages etc. -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The other issue is that sometimes those pages were articles at one point and did have discussions. We generally don't ever delete a talk page if the assosciated content is still here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Eric mit 1992 Blacklight Power

A new editor, User_talk:Eric mit 1992, (125 edits) appears to be wikilawyering (just look at the last 5-6 threads) at Talk:Blacklight_Power, a company based on pseudoscience. Not sure how to proceed. Any admins or experienced editors want to have a look and provide any advice, or the best way to handle it? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Attempts to engage on the users talk page did not go well: [13]. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC) The editor just got blocked for 24 hours for 9 reverts as well: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Eric_mit_1992_reported_by_User:Bhny_.28Result:_24_hours.29; the topic is under discretionary sanctions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

Comments welcome. - jc37 03:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I'm a bit confused about asking for comments on that when Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept is still open. Shouldn't that be settled first? Dougweller (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• See also: Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions. There seems to be a theme here. Chedzilla (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's because every other proposal for a similar process has been shouted down and maybe people think that if they propose several processes at least one of them will stick? Or maybe they can eventually be merged into one good solid process. In any case, it's long overdue. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Alterations

An editor who also posted to Talk:Rangers F.C. got lost on the way to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and thought that it was here. Uncle G (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Question about protection

I have just fully protected Syria for a week as a result of an content dispute. However, the article was previously semi-protected until October because of persistent vandalism. I have no intention to remove the semi-protection that is already in place, as the full protection is for a different, shorter-term issue. However, when the protection expires, the semi-protection will also be lost (as happened at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). Is there a way to prevent the current semi-protection from expiring when full protection expires? If not, is it worth talking to the developers about? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)