Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
![]() | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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).
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
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.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
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 |
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
ANI thread concerning Yasuke
(Initiated 46 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 4 days ago on 13 August 2024) I'm not seeing any comments in two days and I'm reading clear community consensus for a TBAN. Admin close required. TarnishedPathtalk 14:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 107 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 105 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 105 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)
Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 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)
- During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- For recall, @Sirdog: had attempted a close of one section, and then self-reverted. Just in case a future closer finds this helpful. Soni (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
—Sirdog (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Not many people agreed with the concerns expressed on article talk about closing section by section. If a closer can't find consensus because the discussion is FUBAR, they can make that determination. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I also think closing some sections at a time is pretty acceptable, especially given we have only been waiting 2+ months for them. I also have strong opinions on 'involved experienced editors' narrowing down a closer's scope just because they speak strongly enough on how they think it should be closed. But I am Capital-I involved too, so shall wait until someone takes these up. Soni (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping. For what it's worth, I think that close was an accurate assessment of that single section's consensus, so hopefully I make someone's day easier down the line. Happy to answer questions from any editor about it.
(Initiated 76 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 56 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 46 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done This discussion was archived by consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 45 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 44 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The present text in the article is ambiguous. The present sentence within the Military Frontier, in the Austrian Empire (present-day Croatia)
can be interpreted in two ways, as can be seen from the discussion. One group of editors interpret this as "although today in Croatia, Tesla's birthplace was not related to Kingdom of Croatia at the time of his birth in the 19th century" and other group of editors are claiming that "at that time the area was a part of "Kingdom of Croatia". I hope that end consensus will resolve that ambiguity. Whatever the consensus will be, let's not have ambiguous text. The article should provide a clear answer to that question. Trimpops2 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?
(Initiated 41 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Chaotic Enby I was reviewing this for a close, but I wonder if reopening the RFC and reducing the number of options would help find a consensus. It seems like a consensus could be found between options A or D. Nemov (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- That could definitely work! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done no need for such a close ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 July 2024) -sche (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- There have been only 5 !votes since end July (out of 50+) so this could be closed now. Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 0 days ago on 17 August 2024) This is a WP:SNOW and can be closed by a independent closer. Note: there are two sections to the RFC, Reliability of Al Jazeera - Arab-Israeli conflict and Reliability of Al Jazeera - General topics. Both sections are WP:SNOW. TarnishedPathtalk 08:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note, the second section is snowing harder than the first one. The second section is unanimous based on the time of this comment. starship.paint (RUN) 08:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 36 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 33 | 47 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 262 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPathtalk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 85 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 82 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)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 80 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 70 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 22 July 2024) – please close this fairly long-running move review. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Proposed community ban of User:Doughnuthead
This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.
User rights for the Education Program extension
Hi! I'm seeking feedback for the configuration of user rights on the revised version of the Education Program extension, which we're hopeful can be deployed in the next few weeks. The user rights configuration will be rearranged to avoid a Wikimedia staff role as bottleneck or control point for the user rights. Please take a look at the proposed configuration and give feedback. The nominal plan would be to have bureaucrats control the "Education Program administrator" flag, which would be the main right for controlling other user rights and administrative features within the new "Education Program:" namespace. Thanks!--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(As the signature suggests, I'm now working for WMF. I'm essential the community liaison for the education program, so please feel free to bring related issues and frustrations to me. -Sage)
- What administrative action or issue are you asking for? Do you realize that this board is for issues which require administrative review and action, not for general discussion? Simply because you work for the WMF (this is yet unproven) does not mean you can violate policies of the English wikipedia. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 01:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- This page is for "General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." In other words, issues that you'd like to bring to the notice of administrators as a group. The Education Program extension and its configuration is such an issue, and I don't see how my posting was inappropriate.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, this board is for administrative action, not for you to WP:canvass for support for your pet project. In addition your supposed position within the WMF is still uncertain. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Two points. The first is that the IP above, as well as the main account, have been blocked for WP:SCRUTINY reasons. This was done by other checkusers, but I think it only fair to note this.
My second point is that I believe it's inappropriate for the WMF to create its own namespace on this project, and further to institute user rights over which this project has no control. This namespace is going to be used only for the administration of WMF-certified education programs. They have their own Outreach wiki to do this, making interwiki links where necessary. I can think of a few possible additional namespaces that this project might want to consider. Having a separate namespace, with its very own special user rights attached to it, for the purpose of administering a WMF program, is very far down the list of "good reasons for creating a new namespace" in my mind. Although this is probably a fait accompli, I will still point out that Wikipedia is not a hosting service, not even for the WMF. I've also commented at the link added by Sage. Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- This does seem a bit odd. As our policies extend to every portion of this site, are we to assume that our existing admins, functionaries, new page patrollers, etc will be expected to do maintenance for this new namespace that has not been approved by the community? Just tacking on a whole new namespace without even asking us first seems like more muscle-flexing by the WMF. Why here? Why not their own wiki that they already have set up, as suggested by Risker? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Unblock request from Kmarinas86
Hello? Votes, anyone? Please read!
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm posting this here because this is one of Wikipedia's most public pages, and there's not really a general community noticeboard, at least as far as I know. I'm not trying to canvass; what I'm doing is kind of like relisting an AfD discussion and linking to it in a very public place so a consensus can be reached. I'm holding a vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars in all of Wikipedia's history, but only one editor has voted in almost a month. See here: Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun#A vote on the top 10 lamest edit wars. I just want people to vote, that's all. Thank you. ChromaNebula (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think it would be more appropriate to post this over at the village pump. You could also post it over on Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 05:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Non-admin edits to Wikipedia:List of banned users
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For discussion - there is not currently any ban or protection on non-administrator edits to the list of banned users. Obviously much mischief over long term scales could be caused by misinformation there, and its more than usually sensitive to conflict behaviors.
Should we be considering protection at some level? Or is watchlist monitoring "enough"? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I would consider watchlist monitoring. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No need for non-admins to edit that page. Full protect it. Administrators can update it at the same time as they close the discussion that results in the ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Adminship is only extra tools not any special trust. Why would you full protect a page and encourage such a position? Adminship is no big deal. 65.96.75.57 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would think that it would be an admin only page, although I don't know if there is a hard rule, simply because blocks and ban determination tend to be admin functions, and it is easy to make a good faith mistake. It is about accountability. And IP, quoting Jimbo on "not a big deal" doesn't make it true. This is one of the biggest websites in the world, so there is some responsibility involved and required. Quoting that is very 2002 of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) Well what is the page? Is it a list of banned users, or is it a place to add whatever thought you want to add about a particular banned user on a particular day? If it's just a list of banned users, then only administrators can close a discussion with that outcome, so their editing the list should be fine. If it's a "let's say bad things about people" place, then why is it there? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
All right. First of all, I would like to owe everyone a sincere apology for my unintentional personal attack on the banned users page. I am fully aware of the no personal attack policy, and I believe it was a good faith mistake on my part, and I did not intend to break Wikipedia protocol in doing so. Now, if I would consider either full protection or watchlist monitoring, I think watchlist monitoring may be a necessary measure in this matter, because as User:Dennis Brown pointed out to me, it is probably not really a good page for a non-admin to edit only because of the potential ramifications of an improper addition to this page, and that would be a very easy mistake to make. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I only think this list should be kept in orderly fashion. If user X was banned, there should be an official closing of the banning discussion by an uninvolved administrator. Then, a simple notice that user X was banned, with appropriate links and conclusion made by the closing administrator should be included in the list. Such records would be fully consistent with policy. But most records in the list are just fine, so I do not see any pressing problems out there. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- This looks like a solution in search of a problem. In the absence of any history of serious vandalism or mischief on the page, having a number of admins and long-term editors add it to their watchlist would seem to be sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- There's no reason to restrict this page to admins-only. It's just like any other page. Maybe more admins need to watch it. Keep the permanent semi-protection if you must, and don't restrict it from the other good-faith editors who help out the comparatively miniscule admin force (who can't be everywhere all the time). Doc talk 06:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Doc9871, there is no reason to restrict the page to administrator only. It's a list of banned editors, something that can be easily verified by checking the blocked user and adjusting the page for administrators and non-administrators alike. In fact, as it seems the number of active administrators is slowly growing smaller, this actually compounds the problem. Regards, — Moe ε 09:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I see no reason to restrict ths to admins only. I do think that semi protection is necessary here, but not full. In fact, there is one reason for non-admins to edit this, and that is to remove reports of expired bans. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- The proper response to an erroneous edit is to revert it. The page exists to provide a certain link location to actual ban statements, no significant harm comes from a transiently incorrect entry. Given the shortage of active admins, we should only require admins to do actual admin functions, not gnome stuff. Nobody Ent 16:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- If this came through as a request at WP:RFPP (which is currently backlogged by the way) my reaction would be
Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively.. Semi seems warranted, but this one minor incident, for which the user has already apologized, does not warrant full indef protection. Disruption would have to be pretty severe to justify that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that this isn't protected. Why would non-admins need to edit this list? It's not like the page has a backlog.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Possibly because of the reasons I mentioned in the remark immediately preceeding yours. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- There should absolutely not be any restrictions againt non-admins editing that page. Non-admins should be allowed to edit any page at Wikipedia and do any task which does not require the admin tools. That is, unless it needs to be deleted, protected, or blocked, there is no compelling reason to arbitrarily exclude non-admins from any task. --Jayron32 04:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Help needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rather than post this at several noticeboards, I was wondering if an administrator could help with the vandalism described at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Inappropriate moves by tag-teaming new editors. A number of editors, it seems have been doing some tag-team vandalism. At least, it looks like vandalism - it involves page moves and creating purposely ambiguous categories, in an effort to make University of Newcastle (Australia) take precedence over University of Newcastle (disambiguation). The cut and paste moves have been reverted, but I was wondering if anyone could do a speedy merge of the recently created Category:University of Newcastle into Category:University of Newcastle (Australia). I ask this here because there is no such thing as a speedy merge at WP:CFD (only speedy moves), and a category created by vandals shouldn't have to go through a long process in order to be deleted. StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note that there is also a thread on this at ANI. --Rschen7754 06:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Notification of RFC/U concerning Youreallycan
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to notify the board that I've initiated a Request for Comments/User concerning Youreallycan (talk · contribs). The RFC/U can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan. Prioryman (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just to note, it appears tempers over this issue are heated on all sides. If any admins are willing to keep an eye on the RfC/U, it might be helpful. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC) (I am involved in the RfC)
- I see it .. I just don't know where to even start. — Ched : ? 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Where else has this been cross-posted? Forum-shopping? Secretlondon (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is going to different areas hoping for a different result. This was pointing editors to the RFC/U, I wouldn't consider that forum shopping. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well he's promoted it on AN too, where it got quickly closed. Secretlondon (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, I thought you were talking about the notification, not the discussion. Ryan Vesey 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Extraneous, yes. Bad-faith, definitely no. Both the notice here and the notice at WP:ANI are basically "Hey, this RFCU has been started; please offer your input", and because both WP:AN and WP:ANI are read by people who hold all points of view on this RFCU, he's clearly not trying to stack the deck in favor of one position. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've been informed that a link to the RFC/U is automatically transcluded onto this page and AN/I so the notification was extraneous after all. Apologies for that. I'll know better next time (though hopefully there won't need to be a "next time"). Prioryman (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Extraneous, yes. Bad-faith, definitely no. Both the notice here and the notice at WP:ANI are basically "Hey, this RFCU has been started; please offer your input", and because both WP:AN and WP:ANI are read by people who hold all points of view on this RFCU, he's clearly not trying to stack the deck in favor of one position. Nyttend (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ahh, I thought you were talking about the notification, not the discussion. Ryan Vesey 01:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well he's promoted it on AN too, where it got quickly closed. Secretlondon (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Forum shopping is going to different areas hoping for a different result. This was pointing editors to the RFC/U, I wouldn't consider that forum shopping. Ryan Vesey 01:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Note: More than ten editors were notified of the RfC/U by Prioryman on the basis that they had disputes with YRC. In addition to noticeboard posts about it. The RfC/U rules require they be about a single dispute and I suggested at the RfC/U that notifiying a large number of people looks a great deal like vote-stacking at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your claim that I notified them "on the basis that they had disputes with YRC" is false. I have already told you here that I notified only those whom I mentioned in my opening statement, precisely as the third bullet of WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification requires, and solely so that they could review and correct any misrepresentation of their involvement. Numerous other editors have already stated that there was no canvassing and the certification comments make it clear that the dispute concerns a long-running pattern of behaviour, not a single incident. You know all of this perfectly well and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that we close this here and confine the dispute(s) to the RfC itself at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
"var authorId =" in thousands of refs
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
I wanted to nominate StuRat, as I am impressed with his answers. but, he hasn't responded to this nomination (And, his contributions show that he has seen notification on talk page) Therefore I am asking any admin to delete that page. Thank you. GiantBluePanda (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've asked on his talk page for him to explicitly accept or decline the nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Java code to stop me from logging in
Hello. Please, place in the java code that stops me from logging in for at least two years. I want to go on a break.--Kazemita1 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know that such a thing exists. However there are a few admins, including myself, who are willing to consider self-requested blocks. My conditions for doing so are rather limited, you can see them at User:Beeblebrox/Self-blocking requirements. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming that Kazemita1 meant to say "javascript", there is a temporary wikibreak enforcing script that can be placed in one's common.js here. →Σσς. 22:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed what I meant. Please, go ahead and do so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Enjoy your break, Kazemita1. Jafeluv (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is indeed what I meant. Please, go ahead and do so.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming that Kazemita1 meant to say "javascript", there is a temporary wikibreak enforcing script that can be placed in one's common.js here. →Σσς. 22:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
RevDer please
Non-admin actions at RPP and RFPERM
Do we generally allow editors who are not admins to decline requests at RPP and RFPERM? --Rschen7754 05:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Define "allow". Are they making decisions that the average "reasonable person" would not? That is, if an admin had made the exact same action, would you object? If you wouldn't, then you have no basis to object when a non-admin does it. If you would object had an admin made the decline, then the basis for the objection is that the objection is faulty, not the status of who made it. Either way, it doesn't matter who commits the action: if it is a good action it should stand regardless of who made it, and bad actions should be likewise dealt with regardless of who made them. Since declined requests don't need the tools to enact, I see no problem in principle with any long-standing editor with a good standing in the community declining them. --Jayron32 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- There was a discussion last week about declining unblock requests: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Unblock requests being handled by non-administrators. The consensus was that non-admins should not be declining unblock requests to ensure that users are given a "fair hearing." --Rschen7754 05:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. I agree that non-admins should not be handling unblock requests, but that is because of the nature of the block itself. Our default should always be "everyone can do it", and we should only careful restrict non-admins from doing tasks on a careful basis. I agree with the crux of that discussion, as it applies specifically and only to that situation, because of what a "Block" is; unlike deletion and protection, the damage done by a poorly handled block (and that includes a poorly handled unblock request) are permanent. The social problems of a block go way beyond a minor inconvenience, messing up a block one time will cause irrevocable damage to the relationships between the blocked person and the encyclopedia at large. Not protecting a page that maybe should have been protected is not an issue. If a few more vandalisms show up, it can always be protected later. A declined unblock request is like a second door slammed in an editors face. Not all mistakes are equal. I don't really have any problem with a non-admin declining a protection request as I would with an unblock request. So the fact that the community made that decision doesn't surpise me, and I endorse it. However, I would vehemently oppose any further attempts to imply that admins get special access to most tasks that a non-admin could do; especially where the penalty for being wrong is trivial. Let's rephrase this. Show us a diff or diffs where you believe a specific person has made errors in judgement. If you can't, this isn't a problem. If you can, lets deal with that one person. There's no need to set arbitrary rules just to have them. --Jayron32 06:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The arguements are precisely the same: since a non-admin cannot protect a page or authorize a new permission, they should not be declining one either. As was said in the previous discussion "Never take a 'No' from someone who is not authorized to give a 'Yes'." Were I turned down for either of these by a non-admin, I would have restored the request immediately, since the closer had no authorization to answer "yes". That's not what we want, we want a close to be a close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- An editor who puts in a good faith request for permission is, IMO, entitled to have his request reviewed and determined by an administrator. Besides, RFPERM is hardly overburdened. T. Canens (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- The arguements are precisely the same: since a non-admin cannot protect a page or authorize a new permission, they should not be declining one either. As was said in the previous discussion "Never take a 'No' from someone who is not authorized to give a 'Yes'." Were I turned down for either of these by a non-admin, I would have restored the request immediately, since the closer had no authorization to answer "yes". That's not what we want, we want a close to be a close. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. I agree that non-admins should not be handling unblock requests, but that is because of the nature of the block itself. Our default should always be "everyone can do it", and we should only careful restrict non-admins from doing tasks on a careful basis. I agree with the crux of that discussion, as it applies specifically and only to that situation, because of what a "Block" is; unlike deletion and protection, the damage done by a poorly handled block (and that includes a poorly handled unblock request) are permanent. The social problems of a block go way beyond a minor inconvenience, messing up a block one time will cause irrevocable damage to the relationships between the blocked person and the encyclopedia at large. Not protecting a page that maybe should have been protected is not an issue. If a few more vandalisms show up, it can always be protected later. A declined unblock request is like a second door slammed in an editors face. Not all mistakes are equal. I don't really have any problem with a non-admin declining a protection request as I would with an unblock request. So the fact that the community made that decision doesn't surpise me, and I endorse it. However, I would vehemently oppose any further attempts to imply that admins get special access to most tasks that a non-admin could do; especially where the penalty for being wrong is trivial. Let's rephrase this. Show us a diff or diffs where you believe a specific person has made errors in judgement. If you can't, this isn't a problem. If you can, lets deal with that one person. There's no need to set arbitrary rules just to have them. --Jayron32 06:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- There was a discussion last week about declining unblock requests: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Unblock requests being handled by non-administrators. The consensus was that non-admins should not be declining unblock requests to ensure that users are given a "fair hearing." --Rschen7754 05:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just a note: before I got rather tied up with an aggressive defense, I was soliciting input on WT:RFPERM in order to determine a) non-admin "clerking" requirements, and b) what limitations those "clerks" would be working under. More input from admins would probably be good there. dangerouspanda 11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've recently been working at RFPP after not doing so for quite a while. The new thing I am seeing there is "clerk notes." They will comment on a request but usually don't actually close it. As an admin I am responsible for investigating the need for protection myself so I can't say I find that particualry helpful, but it does no harm either. I would disagree with expanding the concept of non-admin closures to request for permissions or protection. Unlike AFD, most of these are not community discussions where what is needed is a correct interpretation of consensus. These are requests for specific admin actions and admins are vetted by the community based on their perceived ability to make such decisions. It is only fair to the person making the request that a user who is properly vetted in that manner and has the technical ability to grant the request be the one to make the call. That is why have admins in the first place, if it was just a matter of robotically responding to requests based on some formula we woildn't need admins to make these decisions. Hell, we wouldn't even need real people, a bot could do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with T. Canens and Beeblebroz - editors are looking for a review by an administrator and should be given a reponse by an administrator. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Admins are just regular editors with extra tools. If an action can be performed by an editor without additional permissions, the default should always be that they are permitted to perform it. If you request a response from an administrator, and a non-admin gives you the correct response, whats the problem? That said, Unblock requests are different, most other times if you dispute a quasi administrative action by a non-admin, you have a variety of ways to request review, such as raising the issue with them on their talk page, or heading to AN/I. Blocked editors have no such ability, and so its particularly important that they not be on the receiving end of a bad non-admin action. Likewise there is clear consensus that the rules at WP:NAC apply to closes of deletion discussions. But otherwise, until clear consensus to the contrary is developed, the default should remain that no permission is required. If there are specific editors taking bad quasi-admin actions, they should be individually corrected. Monty845 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone saying permission is required. I think the point is that the non-admins cannot directly act on the requests so any "commentary" is simply the non-admin spending their volunteer time in an unproductive exercise. I can see the possibility that an admin may overlook something important in a request; at that point input from others would be helpful, from any party. Tiderolls 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the comments above suggest that a non-admin may not reject certain things, for instance an RFP request. In other words you can't do it without the admin right. I'm disagreeing and saying that be default any editor can. Sorry if there was any confusion from my use of permission instead of userright. Monty845 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Requests for admin actions should be responded to by persons who can actually fulfill the request and who have been vetted by the community to determine if they have the judgement necessary to make such decisions. anyone can comment on anything they like but they shouldn't present themselves as persons who can actually take action on the request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- That said, "anyone can comment" leads to ridiculous comments like "I don't think this person should get it" (with no policy-based argument to follow), or worse ... or engaging a horrifically WP:COI/WP:PROMO editor with a WP:UAA violation over a period of 7 or 8 posts that sometimes just gets ugly. Non-admin comments in those locations need to be properly worked with in order to set expectations, and ensure quality of responses dangerouspanda 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think there is consensus that someone needs to be able to accept a request to reject it. Any editor can reject a CSD, only an admin can delete. Any editor can perform a WP:NAC keep close at AfD, only an admin can delete. It seems there is consensus in favor of allowing non admins to act in exactly the type of situations you object to. Why is an RFP request different? Also, if anyone shows up and says they don't think someone should get a permission, given how rare that is, it deserves investigation to determine if it is founded, even if the rationale isn't stated. Monty845 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Read NAC again. Note how it specifically says that NACs are only appropriate in cases where there is an unambigous consensus. Requests for page protection are not discussions and adjudicating them does not require a consensus, it requires a proper understanding of the protection policy. Of course any responsible admin will take into account any good faith comments made by other users, but ultimately they are charged with actually making the decision to protect or not. This is because the community has explicitly said it trusts them to do so. The same cannot be said for self-appointed clerks. They may provide some extra detail or insight, but they are not entrusted by the community with the responsibility of making such decisions. We need to get it straight here, what is being asked is if we are going stretch the definition of NAC to include decisions currently not covered by that essay. And it is an essay, not even a guideline, so cotiing it as an excuse to do something not even mentioned there is not going to cut it. If you wish to seek consensus for NA closes in other venues, open a proper RFC on the subject and ask the community, we can't just shoehorn it in based on a few comments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Non-AfD_NACs, where an RFC was held. While it was not formally closed, my reading of the consensus there was that it supported the broad use of NACs. Monty845 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Monty, if you ever raise anything like this again at the Village Pump, this board is the first place you should notify. ANI is for actions, this is for " issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Like non-Admin closures. The closure statement simply asks that the guidelines be clarified. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not the one that notified AN/I, and generally it should be enough to add an RFC tag, though that one was mentioned on WP:CENT as well. Monty845 06:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Monty, if you ever raise anything like this again at the Village Pump, this board is the first place you should notify. ANI is for actions, this is for " issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." Like non-Admin closures. The closure statement simply asks that the guidelines be clarified. Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Check out Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_91#Non-AfD_NACs, where an RFC was held. While it was not formally closed, my reading of the consensus there was that it supported the broad use of NACs. Monty845 05:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Read NAC again. Note how it specifically says that NACs are only appropriate in cases where there is an unambigous consensus. Requests for page protection are not discussions and adjudicating them does not require a consensus, it requires a proper understanding of the protection policy. Of course any responsible admin will take into account any good faith comments made by other users, but ultimately they are charged with actually making the decision to protect or not. This is because the community has explicitly said it trusts them to do so. The same cannot be said for self-appointed clerks. They may provide some extra detail or insight, but they are not entrusted by the community with the responsibility of making such decisions. We need to get it straight here, what is being asked is if we are going stretch the definition of NAC to include decisions currently not covered by that essay. And it is an essay, not even a guideline, so cotiing it as an excuse to do something not even mentioned there is not going to cut it. If you wish to seek consensus for NA closes in other venues, open a proper RFC on the subject and ask the community, we can't just shoehorn it in based on a few comments here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think there is consensus that someone needs to be able to accept a request to reject it. Any editor can reject a CSD, only an admin can delete. Any editor can perform a WP:NAC keep close at AfD, only an admin can delete. It seems there is consensus in favor of allowing non admins to act in exactly the type of situations you object to. Why is an RFP request different? Also, if anyone shows up and says they don't think someone should get a permission, given how rare that is, it deserves investigation to determine if it is founded, even if the rationale isn't stated. Monty845 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- That said, "anyone can comment" leads to ridiculous comments like "I don't think this person should get it" (with no policy-based argument to follow), or worse ... or engaging a horrifically WP:COI/WP:PROMO editor with a WP:UAA violation over a period of 7 or 8 posts that sometimes just gets ugly. Non-admin comments in those locations need to be properly worked with in order to set expectations, and ensure quality of responses dangerouspanda 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Requests for admin actions should be responded to by persons who can actually fulfill the request and who have been vetted by the community to determine if they have the judgement necessary to make such decisions. anyone can comment on anything they like but they shouldn't present themselves as persons who can actually take action on the request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Some of the comments above suggest that a non-admin may not reject certain things, for instance an RFP request. In other words you can't do it without the admin right. I'm disagreeing and saying that be default any editor can. Sorry if there was any confusion from my use of permission instead of userright. Monty845 18:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anyone saying permission is required. I think the point is that the non-admins cannot directly act on the requests so any "commentary" is simply the non-admin spending their volunteer time in an unproductive exercise. I can see the possibility that an admin may overlook something important in a request; at that point input from others would be helpful, from any party. Tiderolls 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think there's 2 portions to this... First is the question about mop level activities (Blocking/Unblocking/Page protecting/Permissions/etc.) and the other is users opining on requests that do end up with a mop action. I know I've recently taken to trolling the Category:Requests for unblock for the purpose of trying to cut down on some of the bogus requests that get filed or to help get the appealing user the information they need to make a successful unblock. As such I see it in the same vein of commenting on a WP:AIV or WP:RFPP request, to justify and help the administrator figure out what the community conesnsus is. This has the side benefit of helping me get a feel for the spirit of Wikipedia to ensure that some time in the future when I do decide to make a bid for the mop, my viewpoint won't be that far out of line. I think I removed one "Request for Administrator" template from a blocked user's talk page because it was obvious to me that they were having a tantrum and not willing to work collaboratively. I noted this in my response and waited for anybody else to revert the striking of the template to as to learn, but as far as I know, the action has not been reversed.
- TLDR: Admins are busy. Having Gnomes/Clerks scurring around to help is not a bad thing. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- This issue has been discussed at WT: PERM. Non-admins are allowed to help out by confirmed, as many of the requests there do not actually require an admin. There are also a few admins who work in conjunction with non-admins at confirmed. Best, Electric Catfish 21:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC).
- TLDR: Admins are busy. Having Gnomes/Clerks scurring around to help is not a bad thing. Hasteur (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Troll needs a block
Resolved
|
---|
![]() (no not me :) This guy he's repeatedly trolled Pinthicket's page with various garbage. He's gotten multiple warnings. He's not listening, so perhaps a block would be in order "....We are all Kosh...." <-Babylon-5-> 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC) |
Apparently, someone's creating multiple disposable accounts
Ivan Gašparovič
Please, protect the article of Ivan Gašparovič, because a noname user (here permanently deletes a sourced text from the article. Without discussion. Thanks forward. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I was tempted to block both of you, and the reason I chose instead to levy full protection for 24 hours is that the IP, unlike you, was attempting to engage in sustained discussion. It would have helped had you heeded the big bold notice and notified the IP, whose talk page has never been created. Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The offending section been removed, and the protected article, as it stands is better for it. However, once the protection is lifted, I assume the section will again be added. What can I do to ensure that changes are not reverted again? Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion to the question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:The_Banner#Re:_Gasparovic_revision 89.173.110.130 (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you please take a look at User:Neogeolegend? This user has essentially created a nazi shrine, at Portal:Nazi Germany. He's also creating userboxes like Template:User interested in Nazi Germany in main template namespace (not saying it would be okay in user namespace) and has some other unacceptable content on his user page. --rtc (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- What content on his homepage is unacceptable? Still reading contributions, but so far seems to be historical interest not advocacy.
- If he is advocating somewhere please show us specific diffs. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please take a close look. He is showing an exploding swastika, commenting "this user believes that removing history is destroying history itself". The meaning of this message is clear. The user shows the nazi flag in a userbox, commenting "This user is interested in Nazi Germany." It cannot be tolerated per WP:CIVIL that the nazi flag be shown, and such comments cannot be an excuse. The user has another userbox saying "This user admires Nazi Germany uniforms." Again, the message is as clear. I think any ambiguity that might be in these messages has been purposefully put into them to trick people into believing it is covered by policy, which I think it is clearly not. If you look at the portal, it clearly embraces and excessively uses nazi symbolism, colors, quotes, etc, instead of describing things in an encyclopedic and disassociative manner. Again, the portal purposefully tries to make things look ambiguous by having this anti nazi section, which cannot be any excuse at all for the rest of this propaganda portal. BTW, I'm not sure if he is advocating the nazis per se, rather than merely having an completely uncritical and naive view about them, but I think already making use of this kind of nazi symbolism in this almost obsessive manner, including the advocacy of such symbolism, is clearly disruptive and not WP:CIVIL. --rtc (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is a difference between "I am offended by this" and "you must take action". You are clearly offended, and from a personal taste point of view for the sake of argument I agree, but he seems to me more of a historical fan than advocate or booster. Good history, even of offensive things, requires dedicated historians focused on the topic.
- I am not saying we won't act, but not without actual cause. Focus on finding that, if it's there. We need an actionable policy or behavior problem to act. Merely being offended is neither. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please take a close look. He is showing an exploding swastika, commenting "this user believes that removing history is destroying history itself". The meaning of this message is clear. The user shows the nazi flag in a userbox, commenting "This user is interested in Nazi Germany." It cannot be tolerated per WP:CIVIL that the nazi flag be shown, and such comments cannot be an excuse. The user has another userbox saying "This user admires Nazi Germany uniforms." Again, the message is as clear. I think any ambiguity that might be in these messages has been purposefully put into them to trick people into believing it is covered by policy, which I think it is clearly not. If you look at the portal, it clearly embraces and excessively uses nazi symbolism, colors, quotes, etc, instead of describing things in an encyclopedic and disassociative manner. Again, the portal purposefully tries to make things look ambiguous by having this anti nazi section, which cannot be any excuse at all for the rest of this propaganda portal. BTW, I'm not sure if he is advocating the nazis per se, rather than merely having an completely uncritical and naive view about them, but I think already making use of this kind of nazi symbolism in this almost obsessive manner, including the advocacy of such symbolism, is clearly disruptive and not WP:CIVIL. --rtc (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. There is nothing particularly wrong with having an interest in Nazi Germany — I find it fascinating myself, and we need articles that cover the topic extensively. It's when someone starts professing such an ideology that it becomes something of an issue. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you're writing about Nazi Germany, you're doing readers a disservice if you don't include some of the more prominent imagery; intentionally omitting the flag would be one of the best ways to damage the page, and its inclusion is not by itself a violation of WP:CIVIL. There's also a substantial difference between admiring Nazi uniforms and admiring those who commanded their wearers. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)