Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Graham87 (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 24 December 2013 (→‎Team Event link to Team Trophy: unsigned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Template:Active editnotice

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

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

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

      Requests for comment

      Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?

      (Initiated 120 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 94 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      new closer needed
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.
      If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.
      Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.
      However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 71 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)[reply]

      • FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
      • Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "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)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 70 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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 70 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)[reply]

       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)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 67 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

      (Initiated 61 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 [1] [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

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

      (Initiated 45 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 38 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)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Mar Apr May Jun Total
      CfD 0 6 17 61 84
      TfD 0 0 2 1 3
      MfD 0 0 0 2 2
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 10 12 22
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

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

      (Initiated 75 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 72 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family

      (Initiated 70 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 66 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 65 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 63 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor Fayenatic London. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 52 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 62 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 46 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

      (Initiated 26 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Fiona Muir-Harvey#Merge Request

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 29 May 2024) Some1 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June. 2 !votes in the last 5 days. Discussion, on the criteria, appeared to stabilise on 15 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Closed by editor theleekycauldron. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 12:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

      (Initiated 13 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)[reply]

      Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence

      This seems to just now be a forum thread about being banned elsewhere or something (in fact I am unsure it has ever been anything but a forum thread). Slatersteven (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I am the main author of that thread, and I agree with this request. Initially, it was a reply to a Facebook post by Anthroposophists seeking to remove me from Wikipedia. At /r/WikipediaVandalism, the attacks against me were even more vicious. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Indef-blocked IP amnesty

      WILL NOT FLY
      There is a clear consensus against this proposal. WP:SNOW Armbrust The Homunculus 23:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

      You may have seen recent discussions about the number of indef-blocked IPs. Most of these discussions are in favour of unblock, as it were, usually caveated with "apart from the problem ones". To bring clarity to this matter and start some action I make the following proposal:

      • Any indefinitely blocked IP address whose block was made over five years ago, may be immediately unblocked.

      I am bringing this to the attention of admins as despite having rough consensus from the community it will involve blindly reversing several admins' decisions. It also takes admins to make unblocks. The oldest blocks can be found around here and the newest blocks are around here. Any admin who supports this proposal must make at least thirty unblocks. It's a really simple couple of clicks (x30). Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      • Support. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. Many of those oldest ones are marked as open-proxy or even as a named proxy service (rather than just some guy running some open port or possibly even hacked by third-party). That sort of thing is possibly easy to (re)test, and if it still is an open proxy, why they heck would we want to unblock it? Your proposal completely ignores the "apart from the problem ones" idea that you mentioned as being a popular idea in the consensus-building. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        These things are not easy to check. There are few people, and it takes time and organisation. Statistically speaking, reports indicate most of these IPs should be unblocked (dynamic, etc). -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "We'll assume that what an admin thoughtfully did at one time based on evidence is no longer correct because we're too lazy to look for evidence now" is not gonna fly. If you had written a proposal that was aimed at the actual more limited scope of non-proxy items (again, that's what the consensus seems to have been) (and others, good point about CUBL, Berean Hunter), you might have more of a chance. DMacks (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No disrespect to them or their blocks, but what's a checkuser going to tell you about a hardblocked IP after five years? Open proxies can and probably should be reblocked to current policy standards. There are several ways to get through this list. This is just a moderate version of one end of the spectrum of views, but probably the most practical. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose. First, a reminder that no admin may undo a checkuser-imposed block without running the gamut of desysopping (see WP:CUBL) and second, many of the IP's may be TOR nodes or other open proxys. A blanket unblocking would be daft.
         — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      WikiProject on open proxies notified.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)      [reply]

      Full disclosure: I often speak for WP:OP, but I don't here and this proposal doesn't stem from there. My interest is that the alternative, basically, is listing all 20k+ of them there. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose as per a completely crazy idea. Some IPs are long-standing, still-active open-proxy IPs. Some were checkuser-imposed blocks that would need investigating to some degree. I would happily support a compulsory review of all of these IPs, but to blanket unblock them may be tantamount to Wiki-suicide... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I think your proposal is well intentioned but dangerously broad. If they are to be unblocked let us check them first and then open them up. JodyB talk 11:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) Oppose any proposal for lifting of blocks without review of the reason the IP were blocked in the first place and whether the reason still applies. -- KTC (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I'd be interested to know how many indeffed IPs there are for a start. And also to know if there is any sort of 'progress check' gets made to see if they are still part of the Axis of Evil. Do they get checked again only when someone using them puts in a request, and if that's the case, is that sufficient so that no other action needs to be taken? Peridon (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose Such a broad decision is inappropriate because it can't take into account the circumstances of any of them. Bring up any of them individually? I'd be willing to consider the requests on their individual merits. By the way, remember that community consensus trumps everything except Foundation policy and real-life things such as applicable laws; Arbcom do not have the authority to tell the community that we may not decide to unblock someone. The point is that individual admins may not undo a checkuser block by themselves. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose What evidence is there to support the idea that unblocking hundreds of open proxies and TOR nodes would help the encyclopedia? Mindless unblocking can occur after MediaWiki includes tools to detect and respond to abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose a silly idea that, at best, would require a lot of volunteer time, effort, and scrutiny with no clear benefit to the encyclopedia. At worst, it would be a total catastrophe, the wiki equivalent of letting all the prisoners go at once just to see what happens. While the actuality of it would probably be somewhere in the middle, there's still no benefit to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
      What is it with all this stifling discussion with an archive box. The discussion about what to do with these IPs will continue at WT:OP. Your help would be appreciated. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Vandal reconciliation template with a personal touch

      Well, I was wondering that the warning templates are pretty rough. I prepared a rough draft of a template in my userspace and moved it to Template:Vandal-rc. It is to be used as in {{subst:Vandal-rc}} ~~~~. Any comments on this? I mean, adding it to Twinkle and other vandalism removal tools may be beneficial as many may just flip back their decision to vandalize. Criticism as well as suggestions are most welcome. Ethically (Yours) 17:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      You may want to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings. All talk page warning templates were carefully crafted over time by several users. Deviation from the usual templates is discouraged. Not to rain on your parade, but I see your good faith attempt soon being deleted. :( Rgrds. --64.85.216.158 (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would say that the draft is condescending and patronising. I would also say that the existing warning templates aren't tough enough and that we certainly don't need 4 of them. (all IMO, of course). Leaky Caldron 18:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I would never say "Let me share the truth with you", tell an editor how the entire Wikipedia community regards their edit or venture such patronising advice, or then invite the recipient to visit my talk page to tell me what they now thought of me, even though I might learn some new words. If Twinkle imposed such phrasing on me then I would stop using Twinkle to warn vandals. NebY (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Not an admin, but I don't believe the warning you've created will have a net-positive effect, in part because of the reasons summarized in above posts. I may be willing to offer editorial advice if you're serious about this, but I think it might be better to start with the standard warnings we have and modify them to make them kinder and gentler. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've given the template a substantial copyedit to smooth out the prose. I think there might be something to the kernel of an idea of "Let's talk to new users and try to explain to them why vandalism doesn't help and editing can be fun", but I don't really think this template is going to do the job. Ethically Yours, you may want to start a discussion on the WP:Village Pump about creating a template or set of templates that adopts this mindset - that way people can help you shape what it says - but I don't think this version is adoptable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, if you think the process of getting the template officially adopted would be too much of a headache, there is nothing to stop you from using it yourself. You can keep it on a subpage of your user page and set up Twinkle so that it appears on your Twinkle menu, and then it will work just like the other Twinkle warnings do. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry to cast another note of dissent here, but having taken another look, this really is so obsequiously fawning it is actually dishonest and we should have no part of it. I have added my personal thoughts in bold.
      Hello Vandal-rc! The Wikipedia community considers your recent edits to be vandalism. [but you already know that] Let me tell you a little bit more about Wikipedia so you understand why your edit was undone. Wikipedia is built by people like you and me [actually, it is built by people like me and harmed by people like you], for the betterment [??] of the people all over the world. Wikipedia's goal is to make information freely accessible. I understand that it can be a lot of fun to edit Wikipedia pages to include nonsense or silly things,[I, for one, have never understand the fun in vandalising public works but maybe I just see things differently to you] but before you do it again, wait a second and think: what if you could share your knowledge - true knowledge - with the rest of the world? [we don't share personal knowledge, we carefully aggregate other people's knowledge and I doubt whether your knowledge could actually cover the size of a pinhead] By taking a moment to create an account [as an aside, I understand that it can take ages to create an account] and contribute positively, you can not only make the encyclopedia a better one, but drastically improve your knowledge, too. [a highly questionable concept in your case] A positive contributor is appreciated by the community [but not always universally so and you can be blocked for speaking you mind or criticising others] and we're always in need of someone like that. We don't like to see people be blocked for being vandals,[actually some of us really do like to see vandals such as you blocked, preferably indefinitely. Indeed, if it were possible I would like to zombify your computer or render it unbootable] so perhaps you can think on this [if you can manage to do that] and maybe even create an account [duplication] to edit constructively. If you need any help whatsoever, feel free to approach me on my talk page. [please understand, the template requires me to say this but in truth, I really hope you don't, you vandalising troll] Thank you,. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC) [Happy Christmas, Scrooge's little helper][reply]
      In principle it's not a bad idea, as most of the template are far too big and unwieldy, which contributes to the increasing trend of driving away new editors. These templates are way too big - just say what you need to say. For things I say a lot to new accounts, I keep a couple one/two sentence templates User:WilyD/whydeleted - anything more than that isn't informative, it's serves only to discourage new editors from joining the project. But if you're using twinkle, there's probably no hope for you to welcome potential new editors into the project successfully anyhow. WilyD 14:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've noticed a general lack of interest in notifying vandals (and I'm talking vandals, not misguided new editors or people trying out the editing interface) that their actions have been noted and reverted. In most cases, a level 1 or level 2 warning is enough to serve notice that Wikipedia editors are paying attention to one's edits, and that vandals can't get away with much. This is often startling enough that the vandalism stops. If it continues after warnings, we're dealing with someone who will probably need to be blocked. A more diligent effort at notifying people in the first place that their edits are being scrutinized is a key to reducing vandalism. I can't tell you how many times I've seen persistent vandals who never get warned at all. Our existing templates do a pretty good job, especially since the level 2 warnings were toughened and given an orange icon. If we want to be kind and un-bitey, the level 1 warning is pretty good as it is, and is suitable for use where you can't tell if the edits are experimentation or a warm-up to vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      On the occasions that I encounter a vandal who has some sign of intelligence and clue (not the same thing...), I'll put a personalised message on their talk page. If it's really a minor vandalism, I'll use Level 1 - but I rarely use any of the Level 1s as they're a bit wishy-washy. (I've got to keep getting the panto allusions in - haven't scripted one this year...) I like to be personal if there's a hope. Look like a bot, and they won't respect you. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikiupedia is built by people like you and me.. I understand it can be a lot of fun... We don't like to see... The list of euphemisms and condescending statements go on and on. What is this, Dr. Phil? KonveyorBelt 23:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been working on some lovey-dovey templates of my own, custom-designed especially for spammers, vandals, and other visigoths. My expectation is not that they will change. As was noted by acroterion, most visigoths are just pen-testing, to see if anybody is paying attention. When they get a knock-that-off orange bar of doom a few minutes later, most of them do. But what about the persistent visigoths who are here for LULZ, or the spammers who are here for fa$t ea$y ca$h from their illicit actions? What drives them, what motivates them? Do they really get deterred by level-five-thousand warnings of Ultimate Stern-ness? Naaaahhh. What about personal notes? Nope, not really. What about gooey with syrup, lovey dovey, doctor phil on the steroids-of-loving-kindness-pop-psychology?
        Actually... actually, I have a hunch that might be the most annoying to a visigoth. Imagine attila the hun, or conan the barbarian ("what is best in life? to crush your enemies, see them flee before you, and hear the lamentations of their children"). What angers them, disgusts them? Stern talking-to? Or gag-me-with-a-spoon luuuuvvvvv? I'm thinking it might counter-intuitively be the latter. We should not make decisions about template-language based on our feelings, and our reactions... we should do A/B testing, against *actual* visigoths, and see what sort of language gets the best results. If we use nice lovey-dovey language, that tends to help soften the false-poz, too. I'd really prefer funny-goofy messages for that purpose, actually... and goofy gets tiring after the hundredth time, so maybe *that* will turn out to be the key to de-motivating the LULZ-seekers. In any case, my sincere congratulations to Ethically Yours for really really assuming good faith. I'm not too hopeful that visigoths can be turned from the dark side of the force... but maybe we can lovey-dovey them into getting so sick of it they go away? Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that A/B testing would be a good idea.
      In an unrelated recent discussion, one of the WMF's lawyers said that their cease-and-desist letters tend to be very pleasant and polite, and that the results appear to be the same as if they sent out nasty ones. I wouldn't be surprised if the results were the same here.
      And if the results are the same, then I think we should go with the pleasant version. Those messages are sometimes handed out by inexperienced editors who can't quite figure out what "vandalism" is. I had a long chat with someone last month who told me that he thought it totally appropriate for him to formally warn a new editor for "unintentionally" (his word) vandalizing an article, i.e., not knowing how to add a proper ==Level 2== section heading. This kid's invincible belief that "editing after a revert" (actual edit summary) was automatically "vandalism" may have cost us a subject-matter expert. (Just ignore the idiocy of saying that no article may ever be edited after someone has reverted an edit.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Justine Sacco

      Just Google the name. Or go to Twitter & look for #HasJustineLandedYet. Need I say more?

      Someone want to block creation of any article about this woman for a week or more? -- llywrch (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Hate to ask, because yeah, I get it, but: Why would we? She is now--Heaven help us--notable. GJC 05:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Because she fails Being notable solely for one event. SirFozzie (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Precisely. If she is truly notable now, then she'll still be notable in a week or two for reasons other than performing the most spectacular career suicide yet on the Internet. -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Conflict of interest disclosure

      Hello everyone. In light of some concerns that have been brought to my attention about some WP:COI editing I have done, I wanted to solicit some advice regarding some articles I've written or edited with which I have a personal relationship.

      The first article is Duck Attack!, about a video game I wrote in 2009. I wrote the Wikipedia article myself in 2010, which, it's safe to say, is against current best practices. I was a relatively new editor at the time (about 100 edits) but I have been regularly maintaining and updating the article with new sources since then.

      In accordance with the current best practices, I have tagged the article's talk page with the {{connected contributor}} template, and have updated my userpage to indicate that I am the author of that game.

      Could any interested editors please take a look at that article, and vet it for any signs of overly promotional language, puffery, or POV-pushing on my part? I have tried to keep the content neutral and close to what the reliable sources say about it, but of course I am not the best judge of my own neutrality. Please take a look at the sources and help make sure I am not quoting them in an unfair or biased way. If you can add to the article additional or better reliable sources, please, by all means do so, whether they review the game positively or negatively. It is important to me that the article is an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources say, good or bad.

      Please also check the "what links here" for the article to make that any references to the game from other articles are appropriate to those pages. Most of the articles linking to it are as a result of its presence in Template:Homebrew, which other homebrew articles include as a NavBox.

      The second article is Digimarc, a company I worked for from 2001–2008. I made these three edits to the article, and this edit to the article of the company's CEO, after I left the company. The company did not solicit me to make these edits or (as far as I know) know I had done so; I just happened to be reading the article and noticed the wikilinks weren't pointing to the right place. Given the minor nature of the edits and the fact that it's been years since I worked there, I did not add a {{connected contributor}} to that talk page, but I will be happy to do so if other editors feel it would be appropriate.

      I will post a link to this discussion on the COI noticeboard so that the editors who watch that board can comment here as well. 28bytes (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      (Non-administrator comment) I'm confused; who started this thread? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The person who signed it! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      28bytes did. AGK [•] 10:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Tell us, 28bytes — did someone really complain about the three Digimarc edits that you made? No comment about anything else (I've not checked any other links or diffs or whatever else), but as far as these three, you...just added and fixed links. If the other edits are comparable and you're still getting complaints, someone needs to be pointed to WP:BURO and told to stop complaining. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Following the recent ArbCom elections, some folks have been fairly... thorough in their analysis of the incoming arbitrators' editing histories, so I figured that addressing their concerns directly, on this noticeboard, would be the best way to handle it. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I looked over the Duck Attack! page earlier, and there's certainly no POV or OR issues. Presumably no actual ducks were harmed in the creation of the game, so no need for a "controversies" section. Same goes for his edits to Digimarc, nothing fluffy or inappropriate. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 14:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I also checked over Duck Attack!, and found nothing untoward. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To 28bytes (talk) : I see you have started many articles; are there any of the other of these articles where you could possibly have a COI? Huldra (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've interviewed some interesting people and used the interviews as a reliable source to create or expand the articles for them, for example musician Carl Jah (and an album of his) and science writer Theodore Gray. I think it's OK to do that, per WP:SELFCITE, but I'll obviously let others judge that. I also created Carla Meninsky and later interviewed her on my website, and added a reference to that interview to the article of a game she created and discussed in the interview, Warlords (1980 video game). Another editor later expanded the Meninsky article with additional content from that interview. Racing the Beam has a link to an interview I did to reference one of the statements. I think those are all kosher, but two articles that I created 3 years ago about college newspapers I volunteered for in the 1990s do need COI tags, since I'm discussed in the article rather than just used as a reference. I'll add those tags shortly. They are The Independent Collegian and Spectrum (newspaper). I think that's everything that could be either a clear COI or a grey area, but I will take another look through my edits to see if I missed anything. 28bytes (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much for your answer. I have placed a {{coi}} on Digimarc, but not because of you: see Talk:Digimarc#COI. For the rest, I´ll look at it. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      More general discussion not directly related to 28bytes request for folks to review his content

      One problem with the edits is that they violate Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line Rule". Or, maybe the problem is Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line Rule". - 72.238.62.174 (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      The number of people who violate Jimmy Wales' "Bright Line Rule" in their first edits to Wikipedia is legion. They include Sue Gardner, FFS, who has spoken about how she used to edit articles related to CBC before she became the WMF executive director, and Wales himself. And really, Wikipedia wants it that way, because the ability to violate the "Bright Line Rule" granted by anonymity and the "Anyone can edit" dictum is the bait Wikipedia puts out there to draw people in. Isn't it time Wikipedia and Wales gave up their double-think around this issue? It's undignified. Andreas JN466 15:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      No. Undignified would be doing what one does, just because that's the way it has been done. It's much more dignified to engage in reflection and critical thinking about past and present practice. Sure the barriers of entry are low, and those unused to thinking about COI in written work may not think about COI. Especially, people who think about the merits and demerits of COI writing should include those who have innocently or not done it. Because writing with COI is a responsibility-to-the-reader issue, efforts to educate editors about such a mature responsibility, and address it, should be welcome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see any sincere effort to educate the public, i.e. those who might become editors, about refraining from COI edits. It's all, "Just click edit! It's so easy!" What I do see is knee-jerk responses to bad press, as in the case of Wiki-PR. The Foundation did nothing about that until the Daily Dot and then others wrote about it, even though the investigation was months old by then, and a checkuser and bureaucrat had resigned over it. And what they do only ever addresses PR agents, because, ironically, it's a PR issue for Wikipedia. I don't see any Foundation action to discourage paid or unpaid activists, and that is because the Foundation knows that if they told activists not to edit here and meant it, half the people would disappear. The Wikipedia model is not about getting disinterested people to write about stuff, because they wouldn't do it for free. It's about leveraging self-interest, in the hope that the messy clash of conflicting interests in the Wikipedia melting pot will result in something reasonable at the end of the day. Andreas JN466 17:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Sometimes the more innocent first step leads to going off the cliff. In that situation, it makes sense to retrace the steps and examine ways of avoiding it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Need an admin to make some requested moves to blacklisted titles

      Hi,

      I just made a non-admin closure of the move request at Talk:ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36. It doesn't look controversial, as it has been open for two weeks with no oppose votes and the proposed titles seem accurate. However, when I tried to carry out the move it couldn't take place because the titles are on the blacklist. Please could an admin therefore complete the three moves, or else let me know why they can't be moved to the requested locations? (I don't really understand why they are blacklisted anyway). The moves are:

      Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

       Done by Nyttend--Ymblanter (talk) 08:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for that @Nyttend:, and also for clearing up the reason for the blacklist at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Spaces causing problems.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      24.207.107.93 not working with feedback

      24.207.107.93 appears to have aggressive reaction to collaboration: please take a quick look at the talk page history. Upon IRC complaint from a contributor who was a victim of aggressive reaction to a welcome template, I had approached 24.207.107.93 with a legitimate question about his edits.

      That was also rejected and the reaction was profanity. Such behaviour does not appear appropriate for an environment where ability to work with feedback on talk pages plays a key role. Gryllida (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Hold off here, I may have provided a wrong username. I'm re-reading the histories. Gryllida (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      This was at the same time as 76.250.44.96 placed a warning template on 24.207.107.93's talk page, asking to stop harassment, and got harassed on his own talk page in reply. Such behaviour does not appear appropriate for an environment where ability to work with feedback on talk pages plays a key role. Gryllida (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Right, so I had mentioned the user the purpose of talk pages about 5 times during our discussion and managed to only get a «talk to someone else», without cursing, in return. I will keep this section updated if the contributor keeps being aggressive in the future. Gryllida (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      They may remove warnings from their own talk page, but if the problematic behavior in the articles and talk pages of other users continues please report them at WP:ANI or one of the specialized noticeboards.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Another thing is that we may mention Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. Maybe he has difficulty socially interacting with others, but if that is the case it's possible the community cannot accommodate that, and may have to block him. Both Gryllida and I are aware that a user may remove talk page messages from his/her page, but the entire "don't post on my talk page, fuck off" attitude is highly inappropriate for a collaborative encyclopedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that this is highly inappropriate, and my forecast is indeed that we will need to block them, however, I am very hesitant (a) to block them just for posting trash on their talk page as response to warnings; (b) to post further warnings at their talk page since this can only escalate the situation. They have been warned very thoroughly, let us wait now. If they continue to misbehave in the article namespace or on the talk pages of other users we can indeed block them.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Btw it looks like they have not been made aware of this discussion. I will tell them now.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      He was made aware here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:24.207.107.93&diff=587195601&oldid=587193285 - The user in question removed the notice from his user talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      I note that {{welcome}} was used instead of {{welcome-anon}} or {{welcome-t-anon}}. Could that have helped?--Auric talk 13:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Thanks for telling me about that. I didn't know "welcome-anon" and "welcome-t-anon" existed. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that a different template would make a difference for this anonymous user, does not seem to respond in a good faith manner, and refuses to use some common decency in their interactions with other users. Just my observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 23:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. There are mitigating circumstances here. First edit by 24 was in response to 2500-byte deletion of a subsection in an article about Houston rap musician Chamillionaire. The deletion itself was sparked by a reddit interview of former arb Wizardman, in which one of the commenters pointed to the Chamillionaire article as an example of bad stuff on wikipedia. I'm not sure whether 24 knew about the reddit thread, or just happened to see the 2500 bytes disappear, but this was 24's edit-summary of their revert of Wizardman's deletion:

      17:26, 21 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+2,503)‎ . . Chamillionaire ‎ (rv. you're powertripping. if you want to change it, fix it. people put a lot of work into this. show some respect.)

      Agree that WP:NICE isn't made of rubber, of course... but if your first edit to wikipedia is trying to keep something from being deleted, and then you are locked out of the page with WP:FLAGGED and zero discussion on the talkpage, it's hardly a good way to start. WP:IMAGINE applies methinks. Rather than a discussion about how horrid 24 is being, I suggest just giving them some space, if they aren't attacking anybody. Being sociable on talkpages is 'more collaborative' but plenty of folks just want to concentrate on content, and believe WP:NOTFACEBOOK is the unwritten sixth pillar.  :-)   Anyhoo, don't think anybody here in this thread is doing anything improper, and I also don't think Wizardman or the other folks over at Chamillionaire did anything wrong (there was copyvio as well as youtube-cites apparently... so it had to go and that right quickly). Point is, just wanted to make sure the folks here know why 24 might be extra unhappy this weekend. They seem adept with edit-summaries as a means of communication, so as long as their behavior chills out with time, they might end up a constructive contributor. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Have you read the posts on WhisperToMe's talk page? That's not very "sociable". "Why" never gives someone a reason to "speak" like that.

      If the user empties his talk page repeatedly checking its history is a good idea. (And it was also mentioned that his reactions appear on other contributors' talk pages as well, so (a) from Ymblanter's summary is not accurate.) Thanks to everyone for the detailed insight nevertheless. I did waste a fair amount of time on this one, by raising it here right at the moment the trouble stopped, for which I apologize. Gryllida (talk) 07:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      BAG Membership request

      I have been nominated for BAG membership. Input is invited. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Cyberpower678 2.—cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 14:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      robots.txt

      Can an admin add an entry for /wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F to the robots.txt per village pump discussion? NE Ent 19:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Admins don't have access to that (a request could be filed at bugzilla), and I'm not sure it's good to add a whole bunch of extra character-encoding combinations when we can use other methods like {{NOINDEX}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually they do, give me a minute and Ill dig up the MediaWiki message. Werieth (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Easier than I expected to find: MediaWiki:Robots.txt Werieth (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh, I didn't know it copied some of the content from wiki pages at different languages. Now I see https://en.wikipedia.org/robots.txt has a comment saying "Edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Robots.txt&action=edit". PrimeHunter (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute closed

      An arbitration case about the behaviour of RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) with regards to the use of the terms 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman', has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

      1. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article.
      2. RoslynSKP (talk · contribs)'s topic ban from "editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I" is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension.
      3. RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period.
      4. For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.
      5. Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

      For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 23:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Archived discussion

      Team Event link to Team Trophy

      Okay, I created the Team Trophy page for the Olympics.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Team_trophy

      However, as you can see, the team event page doesn't link to it and I cannot change it. Would someone be kind of enough to link this page:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Figure_skating_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Team_event&action=edit&redlink=1

      to the one above that I have already created? I tried myself, and it says it's for administrators only. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gia Sesshoumaru (talk • contribs) 01:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

      Ok, I've redirected "... Team event" to "... Team trophy". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=587465074"