Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 125: Line 125:
Blocks should ''not'' be set for length on the basis of religion or any other grounds. If a person died, then the block should extend to one day past the Resurrection? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Blocks should ''not'' be set for length on the basis of religion or any other grounds. If a person died, then the block should extend to one day past the Resurrection? [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:I should think one day ''before'' the resurrection would make more sense... [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
:I should think one day ''before'' the resurrection would make more sense... [[User:Rklawton|Rklawton]] ([[User talk:Rklawton|talk]]) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

*If a person has a habit of (say) making a string of bad edits on a Friday night, then disappearing until the following Thursday, then it would make sense to block them for a week, to ensure (a) you got their attention and (b) you avoided another hard Friday night for RC patrollers. In this case, I would have said it would only be an issue if you were blocking the guy at sunset on Friday, when the Sabbath started, because to meet the two criteria above you would have to block for 48hrs. As it is, you've presumably got his attention because he couldn't edit last night, and the fact that he doesn't edit on the Sabbath isn't really an issue.[[User:Elen of the Roads|Elen of the Roads]] ([[User talk:Elen of the Roads|talk]]) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:33, 2 September 2011

    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

    Template:Active editnotice


    Request for admin to close a merger discussion

    May I ask for an admin to take a look at the Akita Inu Discussion page for the merger proposal between Akita Inu and American Akita and decide if a closure is due. It would be great to be able to get back to work on the article. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I was referred here from a help request on my user talk page. If this is the wrong place or wrong way to flag for an admin to look at closing a merger discussion could someone please say so, either here or my talk page? (and preferably tell me the right place to flag for it) Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a cromulent place to request an admin close a discussion. Convenience link: Talk:Akita Inu#Merger proposal: July 2011. –xenotalk 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to close a guideline proposal

    Could an admin please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)

    P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)

    Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

    Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.

    Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? has received substantial input and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin close and summarize the consensus in the debate so that editors will know how XfDs created by banned or blocked editors should be treated? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC on the primary topic of China

    This shouldn't be a particularly difficult close, but as its apparently been contentious for about 10 years it should be closed by an impartial admin. Cheers. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fairly contentious... if no-one else cares to tackle it (please! <G>), I guess I could - just need to mull it over a lil' longer. Tabercil (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Barnstar for spamming

    It was so funny that I had to share it... deleted talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    What do we call that? Barnspam? Spamstar? Promiscuous Wikilove? -- Atama 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It must be a knockoff. MER-C 02:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Lowest price, free shipping for two pairs according to the user page. How can you pass up on that? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed from Commons admin

    The Ted Kaczynski page looks broken now because the main image and another image have been deleted at Commons as copyright violations. If someone with admin rights at Commons could take a look at those images and see if there are free or fair-use equivalents available (or alternately, move the deleted images here if an appropriate NFU rationale can be made), it would be greatly appreciated. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Main image (MSNBC), alternate image (The Star). Both are copyrighted to the Associated Press, so I won't be uploading them to Wikipedia, but there they are if you want to do so. NW (Talk) 18:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a commons admin, but when I look at the commons log it appears that maybe a free image was replaced with a non-free image. Perhaps a commons admin would restore (revert back to) a free version of the image and leave the non-free deleted? --After Midnight 0001 19:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All three versions of the main image are different versions of the same photograph; all are non-free. NW (Talk) 19:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. Sorry to waste your time. --After Midnight 0001 20:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry about it. NW (Talk) 20:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks NW! Neither of those images look indispensable to the article IMO, so I'll just remove the references to them and swap in a free image for the main one. 28bytes (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC/U uncertified beyond expiration time

    Based on the fact that it's now 3 days after the certification deadline, can an administrator please review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JohnLloydScharf and make a final disposition of the RFC/U. Thanks Hasteur (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. If the users who commented there need a copy of what they wrote, I'll be happy to email their comments to them. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Request closure of ban discussion on ANI

    Resolved
     – Done.Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an uninvolved admin please close WP:ANI#User:Thisthat2011 back again, particularly the WP:ANI#Proposal for community sanctions? The conversation long ago tipped over to the bad side of the heat-to-light ratio and become a place for general criticism from all sides. As I said at the very end of the last section, I am more than willing to discuss my own involvement in those articles, including whether or not my I'm following policy, but feel that that needs to be done in a different section and possibly a different forum. The problem is that the shift in topic has left the original ban discussion in an unclear state, and it would be great for someone to determine whether or not there is a policy-backed consensus to impose sanctions on ThisThat2011. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator insight requested — Article for Deletion

    I'm really uncertain if I'm in the right place to be asking this, but I didn't think asking in random Admin talk pages was the best idea. I listed an article for deletion. Shortly after doing so, I realized that, because the article was deleted once before, it's very possible to have simply listed it for Speedy deletion under G4.

    My dilemma is this: The AfD discussion is already underway. Is it possible to bypass the AfD and simply list the article for Speedy deletion instead? If so, what happens to the current AfD? If it gets closed, and the article fails to pass under G4, will I have to list for AfD again as a "3rd nomination"? Or will the AfD discussion be deleted and any future AfD listings will be the "2nd nomination" as it is now?

    I'm a bit confused about this and probably thinking too hard about it, but would like to have the article issue resolved ASAP. ☆ Antoshi ☆ T | C 01:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A speedy deletion tag can be placed on an article with an active afd. If the speedy is acheived, the AfD will be closed early. If the speedy deletion is declined, the AfD can proceed with no effect at all from the speedy sideline. In other words, it's no problem. LadyofShalott 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to say what the article is, I can take a look and see if a G4 deletion looks appropriate. LadyofShalott 01:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Corre (professional wrestling)--intelatitalk 02:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a G4 candidate. It's not the same article that was previously deleted. Another admin may want to take a look and weigh in though. LadyofShalott 02:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Maybe I'm missing something, but the current version does seem to closely resemble (IMO) the version that was AfD'ed. 28bytes (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thing is the one that was AfD'd was before they'd even aired, and this version talks of the demise of the group. It's that part that keeps it distinct enough to me not to G4. LadyofShalott 03:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. In that case, letting the new AfD run its course makes sense. 28bytes (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    80.65.103.18

    Resolved
     – Blocked for 1 week. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can somebody block 80.65.103.18 (talk · contribs). Reported half-an hour ago at WP:AIV Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. 28bytes (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    the transfer and merger history

    transfer and merger history of Abpakhsh to Ab Pakhsh please. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Jafeluv (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A block that isn't a block

    I blocked User:Debresser for 48h at 18:39UTC last night for edit warring - his previous block had been 31h. As the user who reported him to AN3 has pointed out on my page, due to his religious beliefs Debresser does not edit on a Saturday. Given his time zone, that means the 48h block is effectively a 24h block. Would it be rational to extend the block to account for that? I have to admit I can see both sides of the argument. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that would be over-thinking things too much; down that road, madness lies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my first thought as well. Obviously I over-thought it :) Black Kite (t) (c) 17:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to think about your statement too much; recursive over-thinking might make my head explode. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that block lengths should not be formulated or adjusted on this basis. (I suppose I can imagine an extraordinary circumstance where an editor was repeatedly misbehaving just before going offline, but in that event the block lengths would wind up escalating anyways.) We are definitely better off not going down this road. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with NYB. If someone uses the fact that they do not edit on (a) certain day(s) to game the system by violating the rules just before such a break, they will be sanctioned with long enough blocks soon anyway. Otherwise we'd treat editors different based on their religion, beliefs, ethics etc. instead of their actions and that is, as pointed out above, a path we should not go. And Debresser is an experienced editor, despite such problematic behavior, so they know that any try to use this to their advantage will fail anyway. Regards SoWhy 18:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That was pretty much my thinking as well, but I thought it was an interesting enough point to bring to wider notice. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That it certainly was. When applying rules to people, there is often the question whether applying the same rule to different people is fair and honestly, I never thought about such a situation before, so bringing it here was certainly the best idea =) Regards SoWhy 19:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of a block is to prevent immediate damage to Wikipedia. If this person is going to voluntarily stop editing for a day (for whatevr reason) then they will not be damaging Wikipedia, and therefore that is an argument for making no block at all, rather than extending it. Because the only reason to extend it would be that they 'deserve' to be actually prevented from editing for 48 hours: but blocks are not supposed to be punitive. In short, don't extend the block; if they stay away from the computer rather than pining away at being unable to edit Wikipedia, then good on them. ╟─TreasuryTagSubsyndic General─╢ 19:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Blocks should not be set for length on the basis of religion or any other grounds. If a person died, then the block should extend to one day past the Resurrection? Collect (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I should think one day before the resurrection would make more sense... Rklawton (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a person has a habit of (say) making a string of bad edits on a Friday night, then disappearing until the following Thursday, then it would make sense to block them for a week, to ensure (a) you got their attention and (b) you avoided another hard Friday night for RC patrollers. In this case, I would have said it would only be an issue if you were blocking the guy at sunset on Friday, when the Sabbath started, because to meet the two criteria above you would have to block for 48hrs. As it is, you've presumably got his attention because he couldn't edit last night, and the fact that he doesn't edit on the Sabbath isn't really an issue.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]