Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 17 July 2012 (→‎User:Hopiakuta: blocked). 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.

      Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

      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 should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use 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

      RfC: Tasnim News Agency

      (Initiated 96 days ago on 12 February 2024)

      Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

      (Initiated 64 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      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]

      Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPathtalk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... voorts (talk/contributions) 21:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Done. Courtesy ping @TarnishedPath. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Voorts appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

      (Initiated 50 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

      (Initiated 42 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]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

      (Initiated 41 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 40 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:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Feb Mar Apr May Total
      CfD 0 0 18 12 30
      TfD 0 0 0 3 3
      MfD 0 0 0 2 2
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 17 57 74
      AfD 0 0 0 2 2

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      (Initiated 42 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]

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

      (Initiated 115 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

      (Initiated 109 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

      (Initiated 103 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

      (Initiated 96 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

      (Initiated 32 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]

      Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 21 April 2024) No new comments since 12 May. Graham (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Spoiler vs copyvio

      I've come across a situation and I am unsure how to proceed. In broad strokes, a current reality tv series contest has a loser at the end of the show, the reveal at the end being one of the major draws of the show (ie. why people wait until the end of the program). Someone posts that uncited result within scant hours of the show's broadcast. I get that we don't do spoilers and we aren't censored, but doesn't posting the results of such a series infringe on its copyright, or interfere with its ability to draw its intended audience?
      Should there be a waiting period or something? What is the imperative on posting immediately? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Facts cannot be copyrighted; a claim that just writing so-and-so won this reality show infringes on that show's copyright is about as valid as claiming that writing the Detroit Lions won the Superbowl infringes on the league's copyright. Too much detail, on the other hand, may be a violation. As for spoilers, generally it is accepted to post them as soon as possible. When The Dark Knight Rises is released we will have a fully plot summary within a day (if not hours), at which point the worry will be to avoid putting too much detail in (for copyright reasons). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jack Sebastian's concerns are related to posts that he made insisting that immediately posting the results of The Glee Project somehow violated copyright because of advertising revenue.[1][2][3][4] --AussieLegend (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regardless of whether the fact is copyvio or not (it isn't), if it's unsourced it should be removed. Watching the episode then writing the final result here unsourced is original research. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits›         04:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The episode itself, with {{cite episode}}, is a perfectly appropriate source (assuming the citation is actually provided). It's a primary source, sure, but fine for reporting straightforward facts. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Jack mentioned the fact was 'uncited'. That said, as per WP:RS, 'material based purely on primary sources should be avoided'. It's my view that an episode with no supporting secondary sources is not sufficient. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       06:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question above was not if it should be in the article, but if the inclusion is a copyvio (it's not). Primary sources in an article about the subject are fine (think of film plots, for example). They are not allowed for establishing notability, but for content it's okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      For content, especially mundane content, primary sources are fine. They are the exception to the rule. If the content definitely improves the article, and neither its neutrality nor its interpretation are in question, then there's nothing wrong with citing a primary source. Saying who won a contest is definitely an improvement to the article on that contest. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Crisco: Primary sources for film plots is not fine, though. That's a question that was raised in the archive at WT:RS here. Plot summaries necessarily require analysis and interpretation, which must be done by secondary sources.
      Someguy: I don't agree. WP:RS is policy, and 'should' is a deontic imperative that denotes obligation. We're an encyclopedia, not a newswire; there's no rush to get to-the-second information in our articles. Given a day, I have no doubt there'd be plenty of reliable third-party sources available for us to make better quality use of. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       06:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Null, you'd be arguing against consensus. The plot summary has long been established as not needed secondary sources (or even footnotes). Analysis of the plot, themes, and whatnot does need references. Check out pretty much any film or episode featured article. Primary sources are, by consensus, acceptable for mundane facts and to fill gaps. Do we really need a secondary source to show that Bruce Wayne masquerades as Batman, when the primary sources already have it? No. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There are plenty of secondary sources backing that fact up. We're talking about using a primary source where no secondary sources are present. That situation should not occur in our articles. – NULL ‹talk›
      ‹edits›       06:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to open an RFC on that if you wish, but I doubt you'd get anywhere. The issue will not be resolved here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also the WP:RS discussion mentioned is almost 5 years old and had little participation. This discussion happened a few years later and while it was primary about spoilers the primary sources were discussed and most of the people in that discussion agreed that primary sources can be used. The discussion is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Spoilers. Since this discussion happened at a later date and had vastly more participation than the other one I think it should take precedence. There are likely more discussions that support this.--70.49.83.93 (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also the discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 75#Perhaps revisit this "perennial proposal" in light of new comment by Jimbo from April 2010 came to the same conclusion against requiring secondary sources for plot sections. Also like the previous discussion it had a greater participation that the earlier discussion mentioned. To get the use of primary sources overturned we will need more that a sparsely covered discussion from 2007.--70.49.83.93 (talk) 06:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As long as the show has aired under normal broadcast situations, any normal summary of the contents is fair game on WP. --MASEM (t) 05:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. The broadcasted episodes are acceptable primary sources for plot summaries that do not require interpretation or analysis, and plot summaries tend to consist of uncopyrightable facts (of what happened on screen). The issue of spoiling viewers' entertainment, or limiting a show's commercial prospects, are not concerns of ours.  Sandstein  13:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. It has been well established for years that straight-forward description of the plot of a show or book is acceptably and usually best sourced from the work itself, and that if it is reported in one's own words it is not copyvio. Analysis must be taken from a source; I do not think it is established whether the show's own summary of motivations and similar basic analysis is an acceptable source, but I think it would be--if used as a source, not for for a copypaste. That said, 90% of our plot descriptions are directly copied from the program's own descriptions,and this is not acceptable: first, it is copyvio, and second the program's summary is almost always deliberately a teaser that avoids giving the outcome, and is often written in such a way as to not say the specifics of what actually happens. That we do always give the conclusion if we know it has long been settled, and to persist in removing it is vandalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems a pretty definitive answer, and I appreciate it. I brought the issue here because I thought there was something that I had only dealt with peripherally before. I realize that I was misapprehending the copyright guidelines we had in place. It seems wrong to ruin the reveal of a program/movie/whatever (in that it essentially steals their ability to generate, unimpeded, their income), but I am not sure how to see a way past SPOILER to do so. Thanks for the multiple responses clarifying the issue.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment:. I remember hearing on the radio that Ken had lost is marathon winning streak on Jeopardy months before the show was aired. I wish they hadn't as they stated his total but didn't know the exact air date. Would it be out of WPolicy to put a big 'Spoiler' warning on article sections that do this? It may be too late for some, but others may appreciate it. If it is reverted then it can be discussed on the talk page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also the consensus to delete the spoiler template shows that this is no longer the way things are done Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 8#Template:Spoiler. A few months later a similar template Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_15#Template:Current_fiction was deleted as well and that is pretty much where we still stand on this issue. Finally Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is relevant to the no spoilers rules.--70.49.83.93 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Rangers F.C. and Newco Rangers

      It looks like Celtic supporters have managed to edit the Rangers F.C. to refer to the team in the past-tense, gotten the page locked, and created a new page at Newco Rangers to reflect the demoted team. This is the same as many recent financial actions - and the entire thing is still in flux. There's huge crystal ballery going on here. It's quite clear that there should only be one article on the existing team, at this time. However any attempt to fix the situation is quickly reverted. Suggestions? Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Rangers F.C. is thataway; I suggest you keep there rather than trying to escalate this situation. PS what evidence these guys are Celtic fans? GiantSnowman 18:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      PPS - forum shopping is not cool. GiantSnowman 18:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seems to be full consensus in recent discussion at the Talk page at Rangers F.C. and still redirects back to that page are reverted. Forum shopping? Everyone seems to want everyone to be notified by everything. I was trying to make sure I'd notified correctly. Violating WP:GOODFAITH isn't cool. Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • AGF doesn't really apply when your opening gambit is to make such broad assumptions about editors you might be in conflict with. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, okay, there's no need for this to escalate into a heated argument. I've already created an AfD for the article, so things can be resolved smoothly and civilly there. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict)trust me if there was clear consensus i would be happy to follow it, this is goign to request for ocmmetn which i hjave just complete i have gather evidence for both sides of the argument nd there comply evidence that the club probally is alive but there nearly equal amount of source says the club is dead and liqudited wikipedia cant ingore sources we have to present it the wya it says in the sources. i am only reverting because ther eis no consensus yet teh request for comment hopefulyl will solve this final and hopefulyl the sitution in the media for sources will eb cler this week--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      the last afd was for keep penguin so i doubt it will change easilyAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      oh nfitz i dnt liek be regarded as celtic fan because i dnt support you, and wher eis the discussion look at the ranger fc page there is about 100 threads ont eh subject not once is there a consensus--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      There seems clear consensus in the final, most recent thread. I never called you a Celtic fan. I called the person who created the new page a Celtic fan. He's been quite open about that. Nfitz (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The afd is coming to a close, and the Newco Rangers article is likely to be deleted, so I believe that the problem has been solved. I believe, however that this case should have been issued at ANI, not AN. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm reading it as likely a no consensus close, with delete most unlikely. And I don't think this should have been at AN or AN/I. This is clearly a content dispute, telling us that "Celtic fans" did this or that or the other thing wasn't likely to impress admins in the first place.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      While my contribution to the debate has been as constructive as possible (as can be seen from my indepth posts, evidence & sources within the talk pages) I don't want to threaten my own credibility with the "the celtic fans done it!" arguement. However, Nfitz does have a point, the creator of the 'newco page' is a user called "superbhoy1888", and another contributor, adam, has a badge on his own wikipedia page "this user is a Celtic fan" and his only contributions that are non-celtic related seem to be negative contributions on Rangers pages. He even suggested an edit on the 'newco' page to read 'Rangers although a enw club are followed by the same set of fans who hate catholics". Like i said, i don't want to call my own creidbility into question when I've put forward alot of well sourced evidence and objective points, but I don't think it's an unfair comment to say that self-confessed Celtic supporting contributors have essentially vandalized the article with edits that are fuelled by agenda and bias POV. Ricky072 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:PERM

      Note to admins who patrol/sometimes patrol WP:PERM...due to some issues with non-admin commentary and closing of PERM requests, we're trying to gauge the need/possible roles of non-admin clerk-type work on WP:PERM. Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions#Policy / process development area for non-admin assistance in RFP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • Please briefly explain the issues you're referring to and provide diffs. Nobody Ent 12:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go to the talk page Bwilkins pointed to and simply look upwards. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Threatening to sock

      If someone - not currently blocked, I think they're having a self-imposed WikiBreak following some heated debates with numerous editors last night - e-mails me saying "happy to disrupt wiki using multiple accounts if i have to", is that enough for an indef block? Never encountered the situation before & seeking guidance to get the best solution. GiantSnowman 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      No it is not. If they actually do it that is a different story. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Further e-mail - "No I'm telling you what i am going to do. Its not a threat its what i will do" - I'm trying to dissuade him from socking, come back as normal and discuss whatever issues he has. GiantSnowman 16:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It is probably a good reason to block them from your email though. Tell them to be a drama queen elsewhere. Incidentally the merits of their "case" change the appropriate response, at least imo. Egg Centric 19:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Indefinitely blocking Edinburgh Wanderer (talk · contribs) is not a particularly good way of stopping him from carrying out a threat which is predicated on his being blocked. Nevertheless, thanks for the heads-up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I deliberately didn't name the editor in question to avoid potential drama. GiantSnowman 11:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      PS I've notified EW... GiantSnowman 11:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      block me

      Indef'd by User:Tide rolls for disruptive editing. -- Luke (Talk) 01:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      for my disruptive edit . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextlike (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      This editor is either forum shopping or trolling (I suspect that latter). He/she has left multiple messages at the Help Desk, bureaucrat noticeboard, and my talk page about matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Cresix (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • what's trolling?? also you all are volunteers then what's problem in helping me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenextlike (talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Would someone please block this troll who has repeatedly hounded me on my talk page after multiple warnings. Cresix (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Undo rename of 2011 reform of succession to the British throne

      Hello, please could this get undone, as the rename was not needed, and unable to be undone (matches some rule that prevents it from being renamed " It matches the following blacklist entry: .*[T₮ŢŤṬΤТЋҬtţťṭτтŧ][OÓÒÔÖÕǑŌŎǪŐŒØƏΌΟΩῸὈὉὌὊὍὋОӨӦӪọóòôöõǒōŏǫőøόδοσоʘǿọ].[Ccċĉ¢сćĉçčUÚÙÛÜŨŮǓŪǖǘǚǜŬŲŰ].{50,200}.* <moveonly> "?).--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 21:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • YesY Done Not sure what problem you were experiencing; you might have accidentally typed in a character somewhere. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more than "to?c". It's "to?c" that is followed by anywhere between 50 and 200 other characters, and it thus matched "to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms". You can find out what this was (and probably still is) blocking by looking at the edit history of MediaWiki:Titleblacklist, and looking at the page move log of the administrator who added the entry dated just before xe added the entry. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My guess is this. Meh...is a blacklist entry still needed? T. Canens (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Secular Islam Summit

      I considered bringing this to 3O and to various noticeboards, but I think we're past the point where it's a content problem and significantly into user-misbehavior territory. At Secular Islam Summit, after discussion on several subjects mostly relating to RS-sourced criticism of the article subject, an RFC was held, as was subsequent discussion. Over a month afterwards, with a lengthy comment from myself explaining my reasons for preferring particular edits as the last comment on the talk page, I assumed that no one had any points to make against these arguments, and implemented the results of the RFC, which included minimizing the "back and forth" aspect between the summit and the Council on American-Islamic Relations and removing quotes from footnotes.

      I was immediately reverted by Kwamikagami, whose refusal to compromise was what made the RFC necessary in the first place. Kwamikagami's edit included the restoration of original research about a living person (commenting that a person we quote in the article didn't say anything about the summit, which isn't in the source), the re-organization of the article to restore the "back and forth," the removal of sourced critical material (which s/he's been trying to remove since day one, in spite of a strong consensus for it), and, interestingly, the restoration of a quote to a footnote (which s/he opposed before, making it seem as though this is more about reverting my edits than actually reaching a preferred version of the article).

      I responded on the talk page, pointing out that my edit had implemented a consensus that was the result of a discussion and asking Kwami to explain the reasoning behind certain parts of hir revert. Kwami refused to answer. I asked again. Kwami again refused to answer.

      Consequently, we are at a standoff where Kwami will arbitrarily revert edits to the article, restoring problematic material such as original research about living people, while making it literally impossible to build a consensus for or against them. I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in to warn the edit warrior and let the normal process of consensus progress. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Roscelese has a history of thinking that if she leaves off the argument for a while, that the resulting silence is somehow consensus. I'm happy with the result of the RfC, she's simply resuming the POVs that she didn't succeed with at the RfC, and I'm not looking forward to resuming the nitpicking edits required to tiptoe around Roscelese's BLP problems. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Miranda Borman

      Have any other admins received emails from someone claiming to be an actress who played a child in the Doctor Who episode, "Dragonfire (Doctor Who)"? She emails asking if she can talk to me, then doesn't reply to my good faith responses. After some Googling, I see she has previously emailed 23skidoo -- but she turned out to be a hoax. The JPStalk to me 09:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Reports going stale at edit-warring noticeboard

      I'd like to make a request/plea for more admins to be active at WP:AN3 in reviewing and closing reports. Twice now in the last couple of months I've had the experience of reporting a clear-cut 3RR violation and having the report go stale for lack of administrative attention (29 May, 14 July). It is difficult enough to edit controversial topics like abortion or biographies of presidential candidates under the best of circumstances; when blatant edit-warring goes unaddressed despite being reported, it makes these articles essentially uneditable. I suspect I'm not alone in the experience of having reports declined as "stale" because no admin looked at them for 2 days.

      I'm not looking to have the recent "stale" closure readdressed (although I will note parenthetically that after escaping a block due to administrative inattention, the user in question has unsurprisingly continued to edit-war). I just want to encourage more participation by admins. I am an admin and I will take responsibility to help address this problem by more actively reviewing reports at WP:AN3, but I also need to know that if I report a clear-cut case, it will at least be looked at by another admin before it goes "stale". MastCell Talk 20:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      This may be too bureaucratic, or maybe it was already rejected before, but maybe some experienced non-admins could volunteer to clerk these pages? Rgrds. --64.85.216.91 (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes this an issue? Are there people cited in the stale reports still edit warring or have they ceased the edit war? It makes a big difference in deciding if this is a problem. If a report is stale, but no one is edit warring by the time that someone finds it stale, then there isn't a need for action anyways. If the edit war continues while the report sits stale, then that is a problem. Do we have evidence one way or the other which case we have here? --Jayron32 03:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the issue is that a lot of blocking admins will use the block log as a primary source to determine the duration of the block. Stale reports naturally means there are fewer blocks (Because most admins will not block then), which also means that the block doesn't fit the level of disruption. At least that's what I'm reading, anyway. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocks are solely meant to stop active problems. If a report is stale, and there is also no active dispute, then there shouldn't be any blocks handed out, even if the nature of the dispute would have warrented a block had it been acted on at the time. If the disputants have solved their problems (or at least backed off to a neutral corner for the time being) then one shouldn't block them just because there was some report lying around somewhere. To block people who aren't actively disrupting Wikipedia is purely a punitive block; "punishing" them for their prior actions. I don't see such blocks as productive or warrented even if they would have been warrented had the person been "caught". That is, if a report is stale, and no one is still edit warring, there's no reason to hand out any blocks. If a stale report allows an edit war to continue, however, that needs to be fixed. It is the existance or non-existance of an active edit war that warrents a block, not the existance of a report on some noticeboard. --Jayron32 04:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, what happened in the case I have in mind is that the editor in question continued edit-warring, but at a 2RR or 3RR level. So I haven't bothered re-reporting it, because a) it will probably be declined as not-quite-3RR, and b) it's actually a lot of work to file a well-formed 3RR report (as anyone who's wrestled with the cumbersome forms knows), and I don't want to waste my time if it's likely to end up being dismissed as "stale" anyway. In the case in question, a timely block would have prevented additional edit-warring, absolutely. At a more global level, my concern isn't bureaucratic; it's practical. These noticeboard reports are the officially endorsed way to deal with edit-warring, but that official way isn't working because of a lack of staffing. Honestly, if someone is faced with an edit-war, I can't really recommend that they spend 20 minutes filling out a confusing report template if it's likely to be dismissed for lack of administrative attention. MastCell Talk 05:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me try to answer this from a personal perspective then. My disdain for the 3RR rule, and its use to protect (rather than stop) persistant edit warriors is well established. That noted, if I came across a report which explained, using unambiguous evidence, that a person was engaged in a slow-moving edit war, or was making a deliberate attempt to edit war while gaming the 3RR rule, I would block them regardless of whether they met the letter of 3RR. It has always been, and as far as I know still is, the established policy that the use of reverting to force through one's actions is a blockable offense, regardless of the speed at which that happens. Once the intent to edit war is established through evidence, a block should be coming, and I wouldn't decline a report merely because we can't find 4 reverts in a single 24 hour period, if the intent of the disruptive editor is clear. Furthermore, I've never been one to stand on ceremony or bureaocracy. You don't have to fill out a form correctly to get your point across. All you need is diffs and an explanation. --Jayron32 05:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's the right approach, and one I share in how I approach edit-warring as an admin. But my experience is that only a minority of admins are comfortable and/or confident enough to block for "slow-motion" edit-warring that doesn't hit 3RR. It's pretty routine in my experience for reports of clear-cut edit-warring to be declined at WP:AN3 because the technical 4-reverts-in-24-hours limit hasn't been breached. It's also common for reports to be declined because they're not properly formatted.

        When I personally look at these things as an admin I don't need to see a perfectly formatted report and I'm comfortable handling slow-motion edit-wars. But when I, as an editor, try to get an outside admin to deal with egregious edit-warring, I haven't found this process to work. MastCell Talk 05:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • That's why I reference the talk page/block log while looking at AN3 reports. A recent report made me yell "Gaming 3RR is gaming", but then I looked into the issue and found something bigger. The issue at AN3 is the fact that the form is rather troublesome, and majority of the time a cursory glance at the history of the article should have brought the violation to light. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 07:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      User:Hopiakuta

      Hopiakuta (talk · contribs)

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

      • What is it you want an admin to do here exactly? You don't appear to have tried simply asking them. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Look at his edit history. I'm guessing he's manipulating wikipedia to his advantage to implement some sort of Google bomb or something similar. ViriiK (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      While his edit summaries are incomprehensible, the redirects themselves look good to me. Have you tried contacting the editor? I've notified him of this discussion. Huon (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      I never made up any "fantasy crimes". I simply said that your edit history is incomprehensible and it warranted my suspicion that there was some motive behind your edit reasons. As for "Uunartoq Qeqertaq" where did I do that? It never was inhabited in its entire history so it never was deserted in the first place. How can you desert something if no one has lived there permanently? ViriiK (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (ec, responding to Penwhale:) Xeno seems to be inactive; I asked them about this some time ago (User talk:Xeno/Archive 29#Confusing edits by Hopiakuta) and received no response. In view of talk page contributions that are ... inscrutable ... at best, maybe a preventative block is appropriate? If only because Hopiakuta appears unable to meaningfully communicate with others, which isn't good for a collaborative project like ours.  Sandstein  11:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The only reason how I came across you was because of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stericycle&action=history where you made these modifications http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stericycle&diff=502742089&oldid=502714710 that made no sense whatsoever. The company, Stericycle, has nothing to do with any of these categories. Can you explain how you come to these conclusions? ViriiK (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

      Collaborative fraud.

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





      Report: Romney made millions from investing in abortion related firm



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

      So you're saying that you don't own these websites despite the fact you linked them in your talk pages (which I've removed) but are now malware redirects? ViriiK (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Frankly, a few minutes looking at this user's 'contributions' reveals that regardless of the motivation for making them, they are gibberish. On that basis, a permanent block per WP:COMPETENCE looks a foregone conclusion. Trying to figure out what is behind this is an irrelevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Egads. Block this nonsensical user now so that the cleanup can begin, i.e. "Condo Rice" redirects to Condoleeza Rice, "Mars Won" to Mars One, etc... Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He also has the following sockpuppet accounts which are: User:persina & User:Kutahopia ViriiK (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Neither account seems to have been used since 2007. I suspect they were never intended for socking - they should likewise be blocked, per WP:COMPETENCE, which is the only relevant issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      WP:PC2012

      There's still time to jump in as a closer if anyone's interested. Progress is hard, and is going to get harder. I asked around at Wikimania, and it was roughly 50-50: "doing it will kill us" vs. "not doing it will kill us". I asked everyone if they would be willing to settle for some middle position or accept trying to get there in half-steps; the mildest response I got was "certainly not". I asked people to participate; they don't want to (until, of course, we get to some big vote, at which point I'm sure many will be more than happy to oppose the bits they don't like). One problem: although there's general support for The Blade and me as closers, I'm finding that I'm having to give this a bit of structure, and if the people who have strong opinions keep sitting this out, I'm also going to have to interject some kind of summary of opinions in order to keep this from crashing and burning at the RfC stage, which means I'm not really a closer, yet, I'm too active. My plan is to just do what I have to do, keep talking with people publicly and privately, have the first mini-vote, and then have another quick vote to approve the closers for the next stage (and I won't be offended in the slightest if people feel I've crossed a line and don't want me to close). - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=502795067"