THC Science

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 45 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed.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

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

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

Requests for comment

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

(Initiated 76 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 74 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 67 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 52 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 49 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

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

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 47 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 44 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]

Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

(Initiated 33 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 24 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	May	Jun	Total
CfD	14	50	64
TfD	0	1	1
MfD	0	0	0
FfD	0	1	1
RfD	9	16	25
AfD	0	0	0

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 27 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:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 20 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]

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

Crashsnake

Indefinitely blocked per consensus at discussion. Fram (talk) 10:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crashsnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am looking for input on what to do with User:Crashsnake. I have seen his name pop up a lot both on my watchlist, and in other places. A perusal of his talk page going back over three years, many editors have tried to reach out to him to get his attention and try to communicate with him. He does not respond on his talk page, and rarely leaves edit summaries. I am concerned that we have a basic competence issue with this user , who is apparently often described as disruptive and engages in edit warring.

I considered starting a user RFC to bring up these issues, but this user's particular non-communicativeness makes me concerned that such a thing would be pointless. Reviewing his contributions list on user talk pages (with none on his own page), article talk pages, Wikipedia pages and Wikipedia talk pages reveals fewer than 10 total edits between those spaces in over a 3 year span. While a user is not required to communicate in any of these venues, it is important to respond to people when they bring issues to your attention, and the fact that he has used these at all tells me that he does know how to use them, so the only conclusion I can come to is that he chooses not to communicate with other editors.

His block log reveals that he has been blocked twice by J Greb and once by Nightscream, both of whom made multiple efforts to reach out to him before blocking him. Spidey104 has also made quite a bit of effort to reach out to him, again with no response. What, if anything, can be done to get this user to communicate with other editors rather than shutting everyone else out and going back to the same behaviors to get his way? If there is nothing that can be done, should we consider a topic ban or more serious measures? BOZ (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that they're not responding in any way, a topic ban is largely meaningless. A wake up block might be necessary. Blackmane (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that he has had three "wake up blocks" already – one just two months ago – which failed to catch his attention. Since, as far as I can tell, his editing is limited to articles about comic book related topics (characters, movies based on comics, etc.), topic banning him from comic-related articles would definitely catch his attention. If and when he is able prove to the community that he is here to work collaboratively, the topic ban could be lifted. If he just decides to "become someone else's problem" by moving on to another subject area and exhibiting the same behavior there, then he would likely face an altogether ban. Please tell me if I am going about this all the wrong way. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans are not a valid solution for anything. All they do is shift the problem from one group of editors to another. My feeling is, if an editor is causing problems on a persistent, ongoing basis, and refuses to acknowledge warnings, then he/she should be blocked, indefinitely, until he/she responds. Period. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Real nice suggestions. You guys make it sound like the "persistent, ongoing problems" I cause are edits that are completely irrelevant any said page that I've edited. I mean the way you all talk about me makes it sound like I make edits that are completely repetitive (or even inappropriate). Crashsnake 10:50, 21 January 2014

They are. Nightscream (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crashsnake: Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere. A quick glance at your talk page tells me perhaps wikis aren't a good fit for you. -- œ ^™ 13:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, Crashsnake, although it is unfortunate that it took a ban discussion to get a response from you, but perhaps this can be a good starting-over point for you? While we have your attention, would you please explain why you usually do not respond to other editors when they bring up concerns on your talk page, and why you do not usually use edit summaries on your edits? BOZ (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems with your edits, Crashsnake, is that you make large changes in one edit without any explanation in the edit summary. Because you have a history of edit warring or making bad edits it is hard for other editors to assume good faith without an explanation of what you have done, especially when you remove large portions of articles. I will admit that some of your edits are helpful, but the unexplained changes, large removals, and no response to questions far outweighs those helpful edits. The point of this discussion is to stop all of the negatives and increase all of the positives of your editing. Do not take this as a personal attack, but as our last resort to help you so you do not have to be blocked. Spidey104 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crashsnake made a two line comment three days ago and he has not done anything to change his behavior. Obviously he is aware of this discussion because he posted that comment, but clearly he doesn't care if he is doing nothing to change his behavior. I was hoping we could change his behavior without a block, but I think he's shown that he won't change his behavior without some sort of repercussion to show him he needs to change. Unfortunately I think we need to block him to get his attention and hopefully he will fix his behavior after the block expires. Spidey104 14:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to address this today as well. Yes, Crashsnake's brief response above was more than we ever see from him, but it does nothing to address any of the criticisms laid out here and elsewhere, nor does it even attempt to suggest that he may be willing to implement any changes. I may assume good faith that an editor is willing to change if they at least make an attempt or promise to do so, but I see nothing like that here. He continues to not use edit summaries, and although I have not checked for any further edit warring, I see no reason to think that will simply change on its own either. I think it's clear from responses above that my earlier suggestion of a topic ban has no traction. The question I must pose, then, is do we think another block will do any good, or should we have a discussion on whether the community would place a ban on him? If a block is the solution, it should be more than just a few days, which will expire and then he can just go back to business as usual; I would suggest an indefinite block in that case, with the proviso that if he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis that he be unblocked at that point. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in support of an indef block. This kind of smug attitude of indifference to the community is simply rude and uncivil. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. -- œ ^™ 16:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I think we have enough to move forward with such a proposal. I'm not sure if I should include something about mentorship as an option for a return. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for indefinite block/ban

I propose that, based on the discussion above, Crashsnake (talk · contribs) be indefinitely blocked (or alternately, banned) by the community until such a time that he can demonstrate a willingness to collaborate with his fellow editors on an ongoing basis. If you wish to oppose this measure, please suggest an alternative approach which you believe would be effective to encourage the user to improve his approach. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support an indefinite block, as proposer. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support an indefinite block per BOZ's reasonings. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BOZ's reasonings. An indefinite block seems to be the only way to start making progress, because as Nightscream said, a ban would only push this issue onto another group of editors, if he chose to edit elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Nightscream (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am all for blocking him, but I think we are moving too quickly by jumping all of the way to an indefinite block. His previous blocks have only been for two weeks or less. I think we should take a larger step up from two weeks than a month, but I don't think we should jump to indefinite. I think blocks could fix his behavior. I recently went from this to this with another editor who seemed to have no intention of changing his behavior because of a block. Spidey104 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Spidey, you may have run into the exception that confirms the rule. The idea with an indefinite block like this is typically that at some point the editor kind of gets it and has to make an effort to get the block undone, not just wait it out. Indefinite is not infinite, that's the rationale. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, that is what I was thinking - it puts the onus on Crashsnake to decide that he wants to improve his approach, which is what I am saying in my proposal. I also thought about suggesting that accepting a mentorship would be a good way to demonstrate good faith on his part. Indefinite could mean that he thinks about it for a few days and bites, or he could say never mind and remain uncommunicative and stay blocked for however long. Indefinite just means that there is no specified duration - could be days, weeks, months, years, or continually. BOZ (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query What is this "willingness to collaborate" going to look like? Too often these blocks turn into a demands for groveling and penance. I'm not saying nothing should be done; I'm saying I'd like to see specific things we want from Crashsnake to allow them to continue to contribute to Wikipedia (that's the goal, right?) NE Ent 04:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that is entirely subjective... I imagine the answer you are looking for would have to be up to whatever admin would be unwilling to unblock him. BOZ (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support indef block per discussion above. -- œ ^™ 07:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support indefinite block - œ™ is absolutely correct in saying that "Communication is vital in any collaborative editing atmosphere." An editor who is perfect in every other way might just barely get by without communication but I can't imagine such a scenario. And as Drmies says, indefinite is not infinite. Dougweller (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Joefromrandb

No consensus for any action. The putatively attacked editor doesn't feel attacked. Bishonen | talk 13:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

I have been holding an editing discussion with User:Joefromrandb on the article Joe E. Ross. The entire discussion can be viewed on the article's talk page. When an established uninvolved editor came in and gave their opinion on the matter, Joefromrandb attacked the person, stating "I had little doubt someone would have the admin's back sooner or later. I guess I'll have to sort through this pile of shit piece-by-piece to find out how much, if any, of it is actually true. Congratulations, the both of you." [4] When the editor defended giving their opinion, Joefromrandb stated "I'm wrong? Perhaps you can show me just where the fuck I'm wrong." [5] When I told Joefromrandb to stop the personal attacks, he said "Do I need to stop beating my wife, too?" [6]

It turns out that Joefromrandb has already been blocked six times in recent months for disruptive editing and personal attacks. In addition, he had been the subject of a number of admin noticeboard discussions, including this one from earlier this month. Based on this history I would have immediately blocked Joefromrandb. However, as an admin involved in an editing discussion with him, I will not do so. I hope other uninvolved admins will examine this case and decide what to do.

I don't have an issue with edit disputes or even losing your cool once in a while. But attacking editors who are merely expressing their opinion is not something we should tolerate, especially when the user has a long history of doing this.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could have just told the truth and said I've been blocked five times over the course of more than a year. The gist of your argument would have been the same. How, exactly, does fudging the numbers benefit anyone? Joefromrandb (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I should have said you were blocked four times in the last few months, and 6 times in the last year. But adjusting the time frame doesn't change the pattern I'm seeing here.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would have also been untrue. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, how many more times will Joefromrandb have to be brought before AN/ANI before the community finally agrees on an indef block? Giant Snowman 14:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. What an incredibly fallacious argument. Honestly, it's scary that you're an admin. You should be required to understand logical fallacies before being allowed to use your admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not. This an editor with well known problems. I've lost count of how many times his conduct has been raised at the drama boards, and there's of course his recent RFC. Oh, and if you think you can do a better job than me/us, WP:RFA is thataway... Giant Snowman 12:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Again with the same fallacies? I don't care how many times he's been brought here, as that has no bearing on his guilt or innocence. And having been the subject of a bogus RFC myself, that again has no bearing on this thread. Your entire "if there's smoke, there's fire" line of reasoning is fallacious, and editors who rely on it tend to misuse it, such as filing AN/ANI/RFC's against users who they don't like. You can have your precious RFA. You know what to do with it. I don't believe it is improving Wikipedia, and one doesn't need it to edit. Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to comment about editor behavior, but that article obviously and currently has some weight and accuracy issues. I can already see a quote that's attributed to the subject in the article, that another source attributes to someone talking about the subject. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why we're holding an edit discussion. But when other editors join in the discussion, and are immediately attacked for their opinion, that has a chilling effect on the ability to reach editorial consensus.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my general recommendation in cases that are about editor interaction rather than article content, misuse of tools, or an editor who simply has an uncontrolled combative personality (I'm not seeing any of these in the complaint above - the 5 blocks I can see are spaced far enough apart that "combative personality" probably doesn't apply): IF it's clear that the accusation is just AND the accused realized he did something he shouldn't have AND he apologizes, then nothing more needs to be done. If the accusation is just but the accused doesn't want to apologize or refused to admit there is a problem, a temporary "until you see the folly of your ways" interaction ban, page-ban, or broader ban (but no broader than necessary) may be in order. I would hope that "temporary" would be measured in hours or days not longer. Basically, I'm looking for reconciliation and restoration of good editor-editor relationships so that we all can get back to building the encyclopedia, together. Of course, if it's not clear that the accusation is just then none of the above apply. If the accusation is clearly malicious then the whole thing turns on its head. By the way, this is a general statement. I have not read the diffs so I do not know if it is specifically applicable to this situation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the linked discussion and at the merits of the allegations being made against the named editor. I see an editor understandably frustrated at having to wade through poorly sourced negative material while editors and admins who should know better attack the messenger. Eventually people like Joefromrandb will be run off while the encyclopedia is filled to the brim with civil POV pushers slapping each other on the back. As usual, the priorities are backwards. You can be civil all you want and it won't change the underlying problem. Joe's curt responses and impatience are the symptom of the problem, which is not being addressed. Bringing up the fact that he's been blocked before proves nothing. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked at Joefromrandb's recent edits to Joe E. Ross? Here is a sample:
- Remove "Ross's personal life was as noisy and troubled as his screen characters." diff
- Correct spelling of "Oo!" to "Ooh!". diff
- Remove gossip attack section, sourced to a blog. diff
Joefromrandb may be overly blunt, but at least he seems to understand what should be in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All those edits you mention are perfectly fine and should have been made. And as I mentioned, I have no problem with the edit discussion, or changes to the article, which are indeed being made and, it appears, consensus now being reached on the article. But Joefromrandb was not being too blunt--he attacked an editor who joined the discussion. This is a pattern which he seems to repeat over and over. This isn't POV pushing. This is about an editor attacking other editors and having a history of doing so.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I personally think Wikipedia would be better off if joe was less combative and less profane; I full listing of how I think WP could be better would be seriously tl;dr, so my opinion isn't terribly important. What is important if we remove all the imperfect there'd be no one left to, you know, write content. alf laylah wa laylah did not "defend themselves" so much as counterattacked with [7] snark "That must be a comfort to you." I'm not really interested in trying to sort out the relative merits of the slung mud.
What I'd like to see in the next AN / ANI / RFCU on Joe is examples where the other editors involved were being 100% compliant with with guidelines on content and conduct and Joe just teed off of them out of the blue. Until that happens, I encourage other editors just to ignore his snarky ad hominem and stay focused on the content discussion. NE Ent 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not likely to ever see that, because: A.) I've made it a point to apologize in the rare cases that I've been a dick without cause, and B.) Because the c-pushers of this site will never behave in the manner you described. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, um, joe ... you're never allowed to be (as you say) "a dick" either with or without cause. So, if you temper that, you'll never need to apologize. Besides, apologies after the fact are not "get out of jail free" cards. Discretion is the greater part of valour :-) ES &L 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just couldn't resist, huh? "Never need to apologize"? So you think moral perfection should be required to edit Wikipedia? What if I told a user to "grow the fuck up"? Should I apologize, or simply edit from an alternate account? Or if enough users were pissed off at me to have a potential Arbcom case hanging over my head? Apologize, or switch accounts? Talk about a "get out of jail free card"! Joefromrandb (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, nice. If false and out-of-context statements is your response when someone comes to your aid as often as I have, and when my statement above is clearly an attempt to support you positively ... I'd hate to review your edits when you're in some kind of passionate editing dispute. Wow. ES &L 15:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that was "an attempt to help me positively" then I misunderstood it. All I saw was a straw-man. I made a simple statement that I have apologized in the rare cases I have been a dick without cause. I think most reasonable people would agree that that is the right thing to do. Your response was that I'm "not allowed to be a dick" and "apology is not a 'get out of jail free card'". I never said any such thing; you were arguing against a position that I have never, ever held. By beginning your sentence with the word "but", you indicated that you were countering my statement, but my statement in no way supported the position you attacked. As far as my statements being "false and out-of-context", they were in no way whatsoever false, and I wish you would strike that. Out of context? Yes, quite. I was building my own straw-man to show you how yours looked to me. We apparently misunderstood each other. Not too hard to do in this environment, as your eponymous panda illustrates. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, can someone close this discussion? I'm the putatively attacked editor. I didn't feel attacked. Joefromrandb is combative, sure, but he's constructive and writes and debates content. That's what we're here for. We worked it all out on the talk page and what do you know, he was right and I was wrong and nothing got broken and the article's in better shape than it was.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)شكر[reply]

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

Issues with Derailing of Merger Discussion at Duke of Edinburgh's Award

Page at Issue: Talk: DofE Award Merger Proposal

Background: An editor, Murry1975, relocated my comments in a merger discussion ([[8]]). I moved them back. He then undid my move with the edit comment "where it fucking was in the first place." I again moved my comments back.

A second editor, Mabuska, then arrived and chastized the first editor - Murry1975 - for moving my comments. Exasperated that the merger discussion was being derailed, I thanked Murry1975 for his support but politely asked him to keep his comments to the topic of the thread and not "refight the last 800 years of Irish history" as the two editors appear to be on different sides of that dispute based on their userboxes and I could see where this was rapidly heading once Mabuska cautioned Murry1975 he "shouldn't have moved them."

Issues: At this point Mabuska essentially began "unloading" on me. He dug through the last week of my edits and began linking to a comment I made in a completely separate discussion on an unrelated high-profile article Talk that had become heated. He used the AGF tag on my talk page to post a "baiting" comment. When I made a firm, but polite, request he stop posting on my Talk page, he simply continued to post on it. In the Talk section of the original article he savaged me with "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" ([[9]]) in reference to my position statement on the merger proposal. When I politely asked him to indent his comments so they were properly threaded he shot back with "oh wait is this better your Indentedness." ([[10]]) He teased me as "antagonizing" in response to my request he stop using four-letter words in a merger discussion. ([[11]])

Conclusion: A simple two-article merger proposal has essentially been derailed due to this editor's sudden and inexplicable rage. I want to AGF but, frankly, it's rather hard to do so in light of the above laundry list of foul language and sarcasm and the more serious issue that the entire merger discussion is now essentially void since it's been overrun with this extremely aberrant behavior that seemed to explode out of nowhere. Through it all I have been extremely firm but demure in my comments, never using foul language and never yelling at Mabuska and Murry1975, even as the situation spiraled out of control, as a review of the discussion will demonstrate. At this point I think the situation can only be resolved by Admin intervention. I take this action reluctantly as I have never requested an ANI on another editor in my 3 years on WP. I have posted it here instead of Incidents because I don't want to generally see Mabuska be sanctioned as I don't know if this is endemic behavior as I've never interacted with him before, I'm just hoping some temporary control (e.g. temporary topic block) on the Talk page can be applied until the merger discussion can conclude. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you posted this as I said I would post an RFCC on me, you, and Murry1975 to see what they made of the behaviour? Regardless I will post a response seeing as you have started this for me:

First of all in regards to the Duke of Edinburgh talk page, BlueSalix and Murry1975 got into a tizz with each other over the placement of comments and the forced moving of them.
I came across the page when I noticed this warning given by BlueSalix to Murry1975 on Murry1975s talk page, which I am long term stalker of it as me and Murry collaborate a lot on Ireland related articles.
I noticed this remark "You're creating an extreme amount of confusion in this Talk section, with the apparent intent of derailing the discussion to avoid this merger" directed by BlueSalix at Murry1975. I know Murry1975s edit style and never once can I say that this accusation stands to scrutiny and is a blatant personal attack because BlueSalix isn't getting their way.
Thus I gave my view on the proposal and highlighted that BlueSalix's false claim against Murry1975 was not the first such false accusation they have made. This prior false accusation is this, and whilst I don't know whether it was aimed at me or User:Kahastok, it was uncalled for and unneeded and I took it as a personal slight.
In response BlueSalix decides to once again start stirring drama by accusing me and Murry1975 of "to re-fight your differences as to the last 800 years of Irish history" despite the fact I agreed with Murry1975s position!
In response I start getting annoyed and to a degree uncivil.
Following this I decide to leave BlueSalix a WP:AGF warning on their [page] stating what I see as the facts. Crucially I propose that if BlueSalix apoligised for the false accusations then I would tone myself down.
In response BlueSalix posts this, to which I respond.
The last interaction is back at the DoEA article where BlueSalix responded to me to which my last response was this, which I then striked.

Yes throughout it all I could of been more civil, however BlueSalix continued to antagonise by their behaviour, tone of messaging, and their blatant refusal to acknowledge their false accusations (one at me, one at Murry1975, and one at both me and Murry) and apologise for it when I stated that an apology would help.

However I must now counter fresh false accusations:

"He dug through the last week of my edits and began linking to a comment I made in a completely separate discussion on an unrelated high-profile article Talk that had become heated. He used the AGF tag on my talk page to post a "baiting" comment". - firstly I never dug through his edits, as stated Murry1975s talk page is on my watchlist and it was BlueSalix's warning dished out to Murry that got me curious in the article to see what was happening. Secondly I was involved in the discussion that BlueSalix made that comment so I hardly had to dig through his edit history to find it. It would also refute that that was baiting comment when what I essentially asking for was an apology.
"In the Talk section of the original article he savaged me with "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" ([[12]]) in reference to my position statement on the merger proposal." - actually it was in regards to your false accusation about me and Murry1975 reigniting 800 years of Irish issues, it had nothing to do with your position and you full well know that.
""oh wait is this better your Indentedness."" - I have no defence, I stated that as I was being a smart-ass as BlueSalix seems to have some issue with the indentation of comments.
"He teased me as "antagonizing" in response to my request he stop using four-letter words in a merger discussion. ([[13]])" - I'm assuming you mean "four-letter words", you are referring to curse words like f&$k? Where did I use a curse word other than "bullshit"? Where did you request I stop using four-letter words?

Yes this is a mountain made out of a mole-hill, however it is a mountain that was made worse by BlueSalix's antagonising behaviour and refusal to acknowledge and apologise for his uncalled for off-topic false accusations. This from an editor who kept going on about keeping on-topic and wanting "restrained and professional manner" discourse.

BlueSalix had a simple solution, a few words. They don't want to utter them and thus accept their guilt. I know I am guilty of being uncivil, but I've been antagonised. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, kindly stop referring to me as antagonizing. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? Instant ignoring of the core issue - BlueSalix's false accusations. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey just wait a minute!

“

A second editor, Mabuska, then arrived and chastized the first editor - Murry1975 - for moving my comments. Exasperated that the merger discussion was being derailed, I thanked Murry1975 for his support but politely asked him to keep his comments to the topic of the thread and not "refight the last 800 years of Irish history" as the two editors appear to be on different sides of that dispute based on their userboxes and I could see where this was rapidly heading once Mabuska cautioned Murry1975 he "shouldn't have moved them."

”

Firstly I didn't chastise Murry1975, I just stated that he shouldn't have done it. Considering I backed his opposition to your proposal, my comment about the moving of comments was an olive branch to show you I was not just agreeing with him because of your remark at the Falklands article, but because I agreed with the oppose regardless.
Secondly you thanked me for the support not Murry1975, however your subsequent response made me reject it.
Thirdly you made a serious error in judgement in trying to judge me and Murry1975s viewpoints based upon our user pages and user boxes and then expecting that to mean me and him are going to be at each others throats! We don't always agree but we work together quite a lot and never have a problem and even share in a bit of fun.

And in regards to this: "I have posted it here instead of Incidents because I don't want to generally see Mabuska be sanctioned as I don't know if this is endemic behavior as I've never interacted with him before, I'm just hoping some temporary control (e.g. temporary topic block) on the Talk page can be applied until the merger discussion can conclude.".

Firstly why would i be topic-banned when the topic was not the problem?
Secondly you interacted with me only four days ago at Talk:Falkland Islands replying directly to me so you cannot say "I've never interacted with him before".
Thirdly, the thing with Wikipedia... everything is recorded. Mabuska ^(talk) 01:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Here's the thing - I don't know you and I don't know Murry1975 and I don't know the history of your relationship. I can only respond to your actions as I view them. Your actions contain a lot of "fuck" and "bullshit" and "your anatognizing" and oh my "Your Indenetdness" and I demand "you apologize," so forth, etc. etc. If this is all part of what you just describe is fun play fighting together, that's totally fine. I have no problem with that. What I'd like, though, is if you could keep the fun to userspace and let us use the Talk page to discuss merger requests as I keep asking. The merger request is basically junked now. (2) And, you're right, I did post a 9-word response once to something you wrote. Thank you for that reminder. The tone, topicality, and style of your posts in that thread may need to be reviewed as well as it appears you were trying to start a political debate ("Argentina's position is obstinate," "Argentina is the state acting all Imperialistic," etc.) instead of participate in an NPOV edit discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, busy at the moment, I will make to comments.

Firtsly, against TPG, my "oppose" was moved by BlueSalix to beyond his added comments, I re-positined it to where it was origanally all, with I admit an uncivil comment- which I asked oversight to remove, it was a comment born of frustration, this can be seen in the history, I had templated the mover and I add a cmment to stop moving it. It was again removed with some talkpage discussion on both mine and BlueSalix, where he accused me of drama and hijack, also claiming his comments where were they origanilly where- no mention of his moving of mine.

Secondly I would like to thank Mabuska for leaving the tp notice about this ANI as BlueSalix seems to have included me without including me.

I have not been on wiki since last evening, I took a step away from here yesterday as to clam down, I apologise for my uncivil edit summary in its wording, but not the conveyance of angst it was born from, which I still feel, as my comment is still out of place and now looks out of context. Murry1975 (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSalix please by all means ask for a review, the only editor to cause trouble at [[Falklands was you and your issue with comments and indentation, you know that problem you had with User:Elaqueate and User:Kahastok that I did not get involved in, the problem that took up a good half the discussion? The same problem that you started at the Duke of Edinburgh article with Murry1975?

I would also like the diffs of where I used the word fuck as BlueSalix claims, it should be easy to find at least one as they claim I've said it a lot of times to them. Otherwise BlueSalix is failing to provide diffs that back up the vast majority of claims or related ones that show how such a turn of events became as they have. Also I would like to see a diff showing how me and Murry1975 where engaging in play fighting at the Duke of Edinburgh article. Otherwise BlueSalix is making yet more false accusations and I would like to cite WP:BOOMERANG.Mabuska ^(talk) 14:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just like Murry1975, I apologise for getting angry and letting it get the better of me, but likewise not for the conveyance of angst it came from. An apology for that depends on BlueSalix's ability to acknowledge their guilt and apologise for it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First - I didn't accuse you of saying "fuck." (see my OP for a specific list of the issues I've raised with respect to your extremely aggressive style of addressing other editors) / Second - As for "An apology for that depends on BlueSalix's ability to acknowledge their guilt and apologise for it." I'm not going to address that. This isn't Judge Judy; I'm not looking for apologies or punishments, declarations of guilt, or public beheadings (also, as per my OP). As per my OP, I am here to seek assistance in getting the extremely aggressive style of commenting that has derailed a merger discussion under control as interpersonal appeals have thus far failed. (I'm also not sure what I'd apologize for - I think you're upset that I asked you and Murry not to use the merger thread to have a debate about Irish history. I stand by that request 100%, but if you'd like me to apologize for it and if that will get things calmed down, okay, I apologize. I still would rather you take political debates to user space, though.) Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murry1975, I realize your original move of my comments ([[14]]) was a GF mistake on your part and, while I'm sorry you became very upset in addressing it (as you've acknowledged), I consider it water under the bridge. That's why I didn't include you in this ANI. For my part, I'm sorry that - in the process of undoing your original reshuffling of my comment - that your comment also ended up getting moved. Manually undoing edits can sometimes result in confusion. Thanks, Murry1975! BlueSalix (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for finally apologising (on at least one thing), however it would appear you don't totally grasp what I wanted you to apologise for, and thus it comes across as kind of hollow. You also need to accept your role in causing this mess with your false claims (which you continued to add to in this discussion here) and the statements you have made here that are contradicted by earlier statements by yourself. Like even now you can't help but make up false claims... "I'm not looking for apologies or punishments" - so you never called above for me to have a temporary topic-ban? "I still would rather you take political debates to user space," - what political debate? Me and Murry1975 never engaged in one, and no-one mentioned Irish politics until you did. If that was in response to the Falkland discussion, I explained that statement at the end of the discussion, where I told you it was explaining what the text in the article is referring too! Does it ever end? At least I accept my part in it. I'm abstaining from any more responses unless an admin asks me something. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska - for the fourth time, the only issues I have, or have raised, are in my OP with linked diffs and I stand by all of them. Everything subsequent that I've written is right here for people to read. As such, it is really not constructive to pick out a sentence here or there of my posts, quote it, and then introduce an interpretive "so what he's saying here is ..." This kind of dramatic intrigue is how a routine 200-word ANI gets turned into the Nuremberg Trials, and is exactly how my simple merger thread got trashed as well. I would kindly ask you to dial it down a little and just let the ANI run its course. Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BlueSalix, maybe you should read what the admin rote on your tp. My moving my comment back was right your continued re-positioning was wrong. So the apology about my mistake isnt accepted, I will follow the admin comment on your page and correctly position it, I will take your apology then. Murry1975 (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't believe Moriori had given you a carte blanche to continue to edit my comment from where I'd posted it and I believe you are seriously misinterpreting our conversation if you think he did. However, if you make the choice to continue to rearrange other editors comments to alter the intent of the original author, to pepper your edits with "fuck" and so forth, then honestly, there's really nothing I can do about it, other than to continue to politely ask you to to please stop and to empower yourself to edit in a non-combative spirit. I don't believe in edit-warring and I don't subscribe to a take no prisoners approach to Wikipedia. It's just not my style. Thanks, Murry1975! BlueSalix (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Through out my interaction with you BlueSalix you have continually displayed an attitude of ignoring what is actually said, either by others or in the process which you dont agree with.

"Murray1975 moved his oppose comment back to the top where it originally was. He had every right to do so and if that created collateral damage to your subsequent posts, then you would know why and could have amended them."

Every right to do so

I edit in a non-combative spirit. Its usually to the point- even to the extent I will answer everything point for point.

It is you who is continually personal, as pointed out above commenting, very incorrectly on my interactions with Mabuska, the 800 years comment. I put one f-bomb in an edit summary, I didnt "pepper" it anywhere, so thats a falsehood and a another personal attack. So with your rhetoric of non-combative editing I am sure you are going to strike that? Murry1975 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Murry1975. I've said many times that I accidentally moved your comment in the process of trying to reconstruct my own comment that you kept moving. I've been unambiguous on that point so I really don't know what else you're hoping to get out of me here. As for your accusations that I've now been making "personal attacks" within the ANI itself, I'm not going to address that. The issues I raised in my OP I stand by and are absolutely the only issues I'm going to discuss here. I'm confident WP admins are literate people and can read everything written in this thread without the need for interpreters or lobbyists. If an admin feels something I said merits sanction, I trust in her or his judgment to recognize it and to act appropriately. Thanks! BlueSalix (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it once is an accident moving it three times is totally untolerable. I am sure the admins reading this will see what you have written. You cant address it without admiting it. Good day. Murry1975 (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, I moved it three times because I had to thrice repair your three edits to my comment and your words were getting wrapped up in a copy of a block of text. I certainly wasn't manually retyping it every time. You made a series of three complex positioning edits to my comment and, in trying to repair what you'd done, I touched your words. I acknowledge I touched your words. I've said I'm extremely sorry as it clearly upset you, but mistakes sometimes happen in life. That's a mistake. We deal with it and move on, just like we did. Yelling four-letter words or engaging in an unusual and aggressive style of commenting that has the effect, intended or not, of running a thread off the track is not a mistake. That's the OP of this thread and that's the only topic I'm here to discuss. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"your three edits to my comment ", I never edited your comment. Please show the links. I suggest you stop with all these falsehoods. Murry1975 (talk) 12:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm requesting that an admin take a look at this so that it can be done with. Though just to make it clear for BlueSalix for when they say they are only looking to discuss what they raised here: if you are going to raise an issue, then expect the accused to give their view and their reasonings as to why they have acted the way they did. Whilst the topic of this is not about you but me, it is vital to the discussion to highlight the fact my responses to you at that time and throughout this where a direct result of your false claims, which you continued with and then added a heck of a lot more too throughout this discussion. You are constantly ignoring to acknowledge and accept that you made false claims that resulted in me becoming aggressive - that is the key vital component of this whole issue.

Here's a further example: "Yelling four-letter words or engaging in an unusual and aggressive style of commenting that has the effect, intended or not, of running a thread off the track is not a mistake. That's the OP of this thread and that's the only topic I'm here to discuss.". You raised this AN against me and my behaviour yet I never yelled a four-letter word (fuck) at you or anyone. Murry1975 said "fucking" in an edit-summary, but that was borne out of frustration. So there wasn't even a four-letter word, never mind words, which implies multiple use. Also add in the fact anyone looking at everything above will see that you can't be trusted to tell an accurate or reliable event of things. Mabuska ^(talk)

If you three don't stop rehashing your argument here, no one is going to bother dealing with it and it will be archived with little to no action, WP:TLDR and all that. I highly recommend you stop now and let others (who might be bothered at this point) read through the diffs and make comments as frankly, this is getting ridiculous. Blackmane (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Massive problem, definitely Wikipedia is about to end, and probably the entire world

Happy birthday, now get back to work. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I went to add myself to Wikipedia:List of administrators aged 50 or more and found it does not exist. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Logan's Run. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like —DoRD (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! [Liek] here too! Guy (Help!) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

42? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? The FILM? Sheesh. Only the radio show is canon, you should know this. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, should I volunteer to help fill the gap? I'm sure my RfA would be uncontroversial

AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very diplomatic candidate. Bishonen | talk 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ha. He thinks 50 is a problem. Walk a mile in my shoes, youngster. Roxy the dog (resonate) 00:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shoes? When I were a lad we made do with old newspaper and string. And bloody grateful for it we were too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should retire from being an admin, and return to the more sane life of an editor. Leave it to the Young Turks. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now. Let's not put any more on the poor Turks than we'd put on anyone else, no matter how old they are; that's nobody's business but theirs, anyway. It's rough out there in Constantinople, don'tcha know. GJC 03:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too would now find myself in the admins-over-50 category, which amazes me, because I more and more find myself echoing the famous comments of Isaac Asimov:

"I still consider myself a child prodigy. I'm now the world's oldest child prodigy. I'm in my late youth. (aside) I call it 'late' because it's dead."

More seriously on this subject, we should all pay tribute to this retiring administrator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably more of us admins heading for 70 than is realised ;) Greatest respect for the retiring admin - at 18 years his junior I'm still a kid by comparison. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the clock is unforgiving. No three revert rule. No terms for vanishing and returning. I, being on the wrong side of the median, see both youthful ideology balanced with the wisdom and reality of time. To the extent I am able to live beyond my years, I strive to achieve but alas am thwarted by vandals, admins, and their kin. --DHeyward (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO dinks dats poetic...--MONGO 14:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The youngest admin I know of was I think 11 when he got the mop. We now have a retiring admin at 83. That's quite a generational span across our admin corp. WJBscribe (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to link to the 11-year-old's RfA? Joefromrandb (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still young. Although by medievil standards I'm ancient. ES &L 12:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, why not just create the category? Or, better yet, create a userbox that auto-gens inclusion in the category p b p 19:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

East Germany

Discussion has flared up yet again regarding the historical description of East Germany. Participants in the various discussions over the years have never been able to reach any formal consensus as to what should be used. This article falls within the scope of Arbcom discretionary sanctions. Apart from having attempted on a couple of occasions to moderate the discussions, I have not expressed any personal opinion and I'm not vested in any eventual outcome. However, I feel it is time for this situation to be addressed, and perhaps some admin discussion here as to what should be done to resolve the situation (rather than the content itself) would be appropriate. See talk:East Germany. 01:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

1.) Why "admin discussion", rather than "community discussion"? All editors should be allowed their say as to what actions admins should take to resolve the situation.
2.) Your declaration that that the page falls under discretionary sanctions has been challenged by more than one editor, so perhaps Arbcom should be consulted for clarification. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear that this article comes under discretionary sanctions and no reason why it should be discussed at AN. The discussion was recently re-opened by an IP who appears to be sock of a blocked user. (see SPI[15]) I suggest blocking the account now, rather than waiting for SPI. TFD (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately SPI claims require evidence. Really. Collect (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

184.145.64.67 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of R-41 [16]. --TFD (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#9

The job queue caught up. As of now, it's only in use on the one article (with a FUR) sadly no boots 2.123.67.6 (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can an admin please remove File:Seal of Haryana.jpg from all non-articles? most of the uses are being created via templates, which I cannot remove it from. Werieth (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Most of the uses of this image were removed with this edit to Module:Portal/images/h. Now its up to the job queue to catch up, or you can force it with a null edit to each page. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC of interest

Administrators and other editors here may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#RfC about listing discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISSUE REQUIRES AT LEAST SOME ATTENTION (over 24 hours)!!!!

NAC: Rangeblock issued. BMK (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I know that you are watching for vandals, can you kindly watch this guy user talk:200.219.132.104. He is now under user talk:200.219.132.103 and still does destructive editing. Check his edits here and here and many where else. And over here someone gave him a right to revert, so he reverted a bot. Could you be so kind to intervene, as his edits look a lot like destruction.--Mishae (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, frankly, I am not such a good vandal watcher. I raise a flag every now and then. It does not seem that his actions are destructive, although are weird. It seems that he is correcting some code syntax to keep consistency. Did I miss anything? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he put spaces after every carriage and that's his edits. He also substitutes RU and UK icons with (Russian and Ukrainian) which makes difficult to see which site is English and which isn't. According to WP:DEST his edits are considered to be unproductive and in some cases harmful since because of his mania to put spaces he sometimes deletes titles. More, he even substitutes cite news with Citation which makes no sense. Since I don't have revering tool I was forced manually to cite references as well as add those icons back in the Euromaidan article. I could have done more ref citations if not for this guy.--Mishae (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, let's address it with administrators for consideration. The articles are too big to track after all the changes and codes. Your concerns are valid and need to be addressed by somebody with bigger authority to prevent possible roll backs in future. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already let user @Kudpung: know, but I think he will be too busy to reply. See, on one hand he had a good edit such trans_title= for foreign articles but on the other hand he doesn't need to move the carriages back and forward and substitute already good text with something less appealing.--Mishae (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, have you posted the issue at WP:ANI? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guess what? I went to ANI, the admin told me to post it to AVI (Also he mentioned that some of the IPs were from Brazil). I posted it to AVI and they removed my comment (twice) at the end saying that it doesn't belong to ANI! I thought that Wikipedia have measures against disruptive editing???!!! Like, do anybody at ANI consider the seriousness of this or its O.K. now to do edits like this without any consequence what so ever. Furthermore, a guy here mentioned about a destructive edit and at the same time says "I fixed it now, but it doesn't warrant a block" and sends a ref to a minor edit. This is ridiculous because I wasted posting those comments till 1 fucking am, trying to convince the admins (which I shouldn't even call them that anymore) to take action. And what's worse, it continues! And this, is after my revert. Although the edit is good overall substitution of Sfn for ref name= doesn't make any sense, also editing author link as Pope Paul VI instead of his biographer's name. Like I smell that his next edit will be here and what's the point?--Mishae (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, Kudpung gave you a good advice filing petition at the "Requests for page protection". That way it would be possible to establish some control over the page. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, yea, it is pretty frustrating. I apologize for sending you there. I will try to address it with Russian administrators such as Ezhiki, may be it will be more productive. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, what's even worse? Is that I reported them not 1, not 2, but 4 IP addresses which were doing the same edits from Brazil and one more from somewhere else. I'm shocked that while other users receive at least a thank you (let alone a barnstar), I get ignored by the whole Wikipedia community regarding disruptive editing, which as we all know is a no-no here.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae, are you following on your posts at ANI or AVI? What is the section title? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I requested a protection on most of them. Lets see what gonna happen.--Mishae (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link one and Link two both of which were from AVI.--Mishae (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk · contribs) issued a short term rangeblock. I'm too busy to look but I'll keep an eye on it and make sure it gets some attention. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thank you both!~~ Hold on, take my words back, what's this? diff--Mishae (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that; it's just that rangeblocks don't show up in the block log for individual IP addresses. It's still blocked. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, never knew it. Thanks! After so much time of chasing those IPs I am glad that somebody put a firm hand on it! Thanks again!--Mishae (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP Canvassing

NAC: OP indef blocked as sock. BMK (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is WP Canvassing on the Yemen article by MiddayExpress. He has contacted: AcidSnow, Inaytiy and Til Eulenspiegel, editors he has had close interactions with in the past in pro-Somalia articles, none who have recently or extensively edited the Yemen article. He has not contacted the Non-Pro-Somalia or other users that have edited the Yemen article extensively or recently. Looking at his user history it seems he and the other editors involved have routinely WP:Canvassed each other on other topics relating to Somalia and Arabs, especially Inaytiy and AcidSnow, and MiddayExpress has edited his page often (by archiving and removing posts by these users in order to respond only on their talk page) to disguise the frequency of this. I don't have time to dig in but these actions are common on Arab-related articles by these users probably due to issues relating to Somalia's contested status in the Arab League/Arab World (Somalia's attempts to integrate with Arab World, and rejection by many Arab states for various related reasons). Whatever the case this WP: Canvassing by these pro-Somalia editors is destructive to the Yemen and other Arab articles. YemenWarriorBoy (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following editors were mentioned: @Middayexpress, AcidSnow, Inayity, and Til Eulenspiegel. Please notify anyone you report here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but for it to be illegal we would all have to share Middayexpress POV, which is certainly not always the case, and he is very conscious that me and him do not always agree, nor does he automatically take my side just because I call him to look at something. There is zero evidence of me jumping in and defending his position--none. And as a Pan-Africanist I for one am not an advocate of making Somali people into Arabs, 100% this is not my politics (the opposite is true).--Inayity (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per appropriate notification, "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message[...] on the user talk pages of concerned editors[..] examples include[...] editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics[...] editors known for expertise in the field." Inayity, AcidSnow and Til Eulenspiegel are some of the main, regular contributors on the Horn of Africa-related articles, so that would certainly apply to them. As for the obvious socking by the newly registered YemenWarriorBoy account, note his non-existent prior contribution history [17], this messageboard post as his very first Wikipedia edit, his self-professed familiarity with the details of the ongoing content dispute with the Yemeni User:Kendite's alternate account, his self-professed familiarity with veteran Wikipedians, his Yemeni username, and his familiarity with Wikipedia protocol and Wikilawyering. This is evidently no newbie. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if I would have been a Somali, I probably would have been at rage if someone would have called my people Arabs, even if they are merging into Arab League (I don't follow on the current events from those nations). I know one thing; correct me if I am wrong, but Somalia is a part of African Union. My condolences to YemenWarriorBoy who probably feels as offended as any other editor is.--Mishae (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute had nothing to do with the Arab League. It was over the identity of specific field slaves from Africa that cultivated palms in Yemen. The AL story was just one of the various things that the "newbie" YemeniWarriorBoy made up. Middayexpress (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YemeniWarriorBoy is now indefinitely blocked as a sock of User:Kendite. Middayexpress (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Since he is blocked, we can close this discussion. Thanks for the explanation. Never knew that users can made up stuff. Was it at least referenced?--Mishae (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article

Not an admin issue. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

What do you think about Nottinghamshire blood bikes? Is it worth working and improving? Since I am a blood donator myself, I would like to help on this article, but only if there is notability. --BiH (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is the wrong place to ask for help with an article. For future questions like this, you could try Wikipedia:Teahouse, or maybe Wikipedia:Editor assistance, or ask at an appropriate wikiproject such as Nottinghamshire, England, Medicine

2. The person who started the article has the username Bloodbikes (talk · contribs) which isn't appropriate - see WP:ORGNAME. I've reported that here. It's not a huge deal, they can just change name - but it's worth being aware that they very likely have a conflict of interest.

3. Unfortunately, I don't think there should be an article about that org, because it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG). 2 short mentions in the local paper aren't really enough to satisfy that. Therefore, the article is likely to be deleted. I searched, and was unable to find any other coverage.

Of course, if you or anyone else could find appropriate references to show that it is notable, go for it. Otherwise, no... sorry.

It's a shame, because of course it's a very worthy org. And I'm from Nottm. But rules is rules. 2.123.67.6 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admin who knows templates needed to fix fully protected, broken, and little watched template

Fixed by Technical 13; thanks!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Can some admin who understand these things take a look here at the talk page of Template:WikiProject Latin America? There's an error in the code and it's messing up a lot of talk pages. The Template is fully protected. There's been an edit request there for a few days with no response and I'm worried no admins watch the page. TIA, — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by Technical 13. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Heads up

In view of this second verdict of guilty a close watch will probably be needed on Amanda Knox. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Khabboos

This is an incident. Please see the thread of the same name at WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1

And that is that. (NAC) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I got a little confused following a page move. Could someone move Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1 over Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

United States Public Policy talk page archive number 1

Can an admin please merge the talk page history of these two together to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1? Future archiving will go to the 2nd archive, so this one is now only historical in nature, but for uniformity and standardization, name of the archive should be upper-case "A" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Archive 1.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page with the lower-case "archive" title to the standardised name. Graham87 07:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham87, much appreciated! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a TFA nomination

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck (film) has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Thank you. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you require any admin action? If not, this can be archived; please let me know. Personally, I find it hard to understand why people in this century consider that specific nomination to be any different to any other. I can kindsa understand that the word sets off alarm bells, but Christ, it's being hacked out on Jimbo's talk and other places - I can't think that any admin intervention is gonna help at this stage. Thx. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEO spamming - a heads' up

Not sure where to post this, but it appears SEO-seekers are using dead links to spam their own links in hopes they won't be discovered. Not sure what action can be taken, but this is surely of some interest. — foxj 17:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

rofl. Well, one can hardly expect scummy people to behave like anything but scum. Reso lute 22:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are other ways besides this to insert inappropriate links with little chance of being noticed, which I think better not to explain here in detail. I had not thought of this one, but there is even the possibility that the replacement for a dead link might be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

blocking 208.180.10.131 for vandalism

I reported 208.180.10.131 (talk · contribs) for vandalism at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Each and every all of the IP's edits from 2006 to date are acts of vandalism. The user has been warned several times but appears to have ignored all warnings. User: Admrboltz warned the IP but did not block him. I discussed the matter with Armboltz on his talk page, where I suggested the IP be blocked for a limited duration and Armboltz responded that 3 months is hardly limited and that I may consider bringing the matter here. I suggest the IP be blocked for 3 months, although I would support a shorter-duration block (say 1 month) if that's the community's consensus. IjonTichy (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't block after a single disruptive edit if there are no recent warnings, so I think Admrboltz handled this correctly. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, are you referring to the Education and warnings section of the blocking policy? Because the same policy also says "users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately."

We warned the IP in Sept., Oct. and Nov. 2013. All warnings were ignored and the IP vandalized again in Jan. 2014. Warning them again is unlikely to be productive. Blocking for 1 month may be more productive at this time, with escalating blocks if the disruptive behavior continues. IjonTichy (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP is from "suddenlink.net" - an ISP.

Has made a total of 22 edits, in 3 'batches',

2006 (Feb-August, but hey, long time ago), 5 vandalism edits
2013 May/June 4 vandalism edits (silly stuff, nothing terrible) [18] [19] [20] [21]
Sept-Nov 2013, 6 edits, silly low-key vandalism [22]
31 Jan 2014, one edit, [23] - hard to tell if that is vandalism.

Benefit of the doubt; it's an IP address. They've been warned about the recent issue [24] and that seems appropriate, but I don't think anything further is necessary (or helpful) at this stage. Doesn't seem to mbe enough to consider it Long-term abuse for now.

Conclusion/opinion:Not worth doing anything else right now; standard warnings should be sufficient. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest someone closes this thread, because it's unlikely that this vandal - who made 22 edits in 8 years - is going to cause a major problem for Wikipedia. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This is a shared IP, so its edits probably come from by multiple users, and thus the person editing in September who was warned may not be the same person editing yesterday. It's also very possible that the person editing yesterday was unaware of the content of the IP's talk page. It has been over 24 hours since they have been warned and they haven't vandalized again, so I'm not sure why you think the warning wasn't productive, seems to me like it worked. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays

Done. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Could an admin please create The Tampa Bay Devil Rays as a redirect to Tampa Bay Rays? Thank you.Hoops gza (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Why couldn't you do it? I'm not complaining: I'm asking if you can remember the message that the software gave you when it refused to let you do it. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one as well I am not allowed to create: The Devil Rays as a redirect to Tampa Bay Rays. Could you please create it? To answer your question, I have posted the error message below:

Permission error
You do not have permission to create this page, for the following reason: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism.
If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions:
Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by email. Be sure to specify the exact title (especially by linking it) of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.
Thank you.

Now, I suggest protecting both of these redirects after they have been created because I think I know what the problem is; people were probably starting to write on that era of the franchise's history when the team went by that name.Hoops gza (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that definitely wouldn't be a reason for blacklisting. Weirdly, the title blacklist prevents the creation of all pages with "Devil Rays" in the name because there was once a spat of "creations and pagemoves by a serial vandal" related to this. I think I'll look into its removal; thank you, since I wouldn't have known what to look for otherwise. Sorry for the typo in the original creation — I've worked with things related to Birch Bayh for several years now, and I type "bayh" far more often than "bay", so my fingers instinctively put the "h" after the "y". Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fresh pair of eyes, please

It's obvious that Abington Friends School is quite notable. It's also filled with copyvio and reads like an advert. Request help weeding it out.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done [25] [26]

BTW, this is a content issue, and nothing to do with admins, so should not be here on AN.

Someone pls archive this? Ta. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting of Topic Ban

Here I was topic banned on Falkland Islands topics. After more than 6 months I would like to take up the Standard Offer and ask that the topic ban be lifted. In doing so, I would draw attention to the fact that it has been acknowledged that I remained WP:CIVIL throughout the episodes that led to this ban. I did make an attempt at an appeal some months ago and at that point had somewhat of a Damascus moment in response to a remark made by User:FOARP and in further conversation with User:Dpmuk. I realised that an error in my conduct was to vociferally respond to accusations made by other editors, and now realise that is fundamentally a mistake, giving the impression of a battlefield mentality. I have edited trouble free after taking a wikibreak (to be honest after retiring with the full intention of quitting for good) and on my return I have edited in some quite controversial areas without any hint of the problems that lead to my topic ban. For example at Talk:Black Egyptian hypothesis my comments in response to a post at WP:NPOVN were well received by all sides ([27]). I have been receptive to feedback on my behaviour (for example from User:EatsShootsAndLeaves here) and have managed to edit constructively acknowledging my mistakes. I have a mentor User:Nick-D, whom I consult over any problems I have, and at Nick's suggestion I agree to a voluntary 1RR restriction on Falklands topics. My intention is to resume a number of articles I have in my sandpit José María Pinedo, Esteban Mestivier, Antonina Roxas, which are articles on notable subjects in early Falklands history which have been requested by the Falkland Islands workgroup for some time. To be clear my intention is to resume content creation, which was always what I most enjoyed in Wikipedia Matthew Brisbane being an example of the sort of article I like to create. In the interests of full disclosure, I do have problems with PTSD stemming from service in the Balkans with the British Army. I do struggle with depression and I have been diagnosed with an acute anxiety disorder. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supportive of the topic ban being lifted on the condition that WCM sticks to 1RR on articles concerning the Falkland Islands as he's promised above. I've been keeping an eye on WCM's talk page and have discussed a few issues with him, and it's clear that he's now approaching discussions and disagreements in a calmer and more productive fashion. As such, I think that there should be few risks involved with him editing Falklands-related topics again. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had a chance to look into their recent actions but I'm fairly sure I was on the fence last time they asked and as they've not come to my attention since I'm happy to try lifting the topic ban. Dpmuk (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support lifting topic ban - if it causes a problem in the future, it's easily dealt with; and I get the impression that WCM knows that, and knows people will keep an eye on it. No concerns. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting topic ban - Wee Curry Monster's knowledge and insight will be valuable on Falklands pages, and the above demonstrates that there is little risk of future behavioural issues. Kahastok talk 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support lifting topic ban. It's an obvious net positive for the encyclopedia, and the steps taken (as outlined in the appeal) seem adequate to prevent it from causing any problems. I've also reviewed WCM's contributions in another dispute he's recently been involved in, and do not see any ongoing significant problem in behaviour or approach. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I started doing some general cleanup in some of the articles you contributed to and your statement that your intention is to resume content creation raises some issues that I don't think you've addressed before. We recently cleared out a lot of word-for-word copy violations added by a different editor, unrelated to you, that are relevant here because they involved most of the pages that touch on Falkland Island topics. My concern is that, while helping, you restored copy-violating text in order to work on it, and I'm hoping that you agree that in the future, it's better to work on that material somewhere other than the mainspace and that copy vio problems should be treated with sufficient care. __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Người Bắc Kỳ

Appropriate venue is Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Người Bắc Kỳ. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It sounds like racist. It means northern vietnamese people not Vietnamese people.--Namnguyenvn (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have already started a redirects for discussion ... no need to post here D P 13:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

비가 , 서스 캐처 원 의 호수

Not an admin issue; please refer to Wikipedia:Translation and use Wikipedia:Help desk or [[28]]. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

i am trying to translate an article (lakes of biggar,saskatchewan) into korean; but it won't let me. how could i do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.95.149 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to make a Korean translation: you should do that on the Korean Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Translate us for advice, and note that you need to provide attribution to the authors of the English article by placing the {{Translated page}} template, or rather its Korean version ko:틀:번역된_문서 on the talk page of the translated article. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

International edit-a-thon today = newbies to avoid biting

Hey folks. As a heads up, Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism is happening in 24 cities around the world today. If you notice any small extra influx of new pages or edits in certain areas (obviously art and feminism especially) please keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants. The good news is that the vast majority of new editors participating will be there with experienced Wikipedians too, and thus can get a helping hand if you send them a talk page message about anything they need to correct or amend. Many thanks, Steven Walling • talk 18:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Non-admin things on AN

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard § Non-admin things on AN

Why does this relate to admins in particular? (Ie, why AN?)

I'm quite used to lots of editors wrongly assuming admins are 'special' when it comes to content, but it's not great that a WMF employee thinks that way. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I wonder what the interesting answer is going to be? Eric Corbett 20:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate a lengthy meaningless Machiavellian schpeil...but perhaps I'm just jaded. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Just because I'm editing with my volunteer account at the moment.) I just tried to give people a courtesy heads up. Sure, I could have posted on the WikiProject Editor Retention Talk page, some other Wikiprojects, and maybe the New Page Patrol or AFC project talk pages. But I figured if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI. If you don't think it's relevant, go ahead and close the thread. Steven Walling • talk 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walling, you are correct that "if anyone was going to come and complain about some unannounced flood of new editors on artist bios etc. they might come to AN or ANI" - however, my point is, they are wrong to do so. It's likely content-issues, not admin-issues, and surely the more we can do to dispell the myth that admins have any authorieh over content, the better. It would be cool if WMF could enourage that attitude. Hoping you understand. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I mean is, "two wrongs don't make a right". If people post here about content, I can explain why they're in the wrong place and redirect them appropriately. But if WMF employees post here about content, that makes it look like I am wrong to do so. Does that make more sense? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this thread over to Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#Non-admin_things_on_AN because if I did not, it'd be hypocritical. Hope that's cool. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"keep in mind that this may be edit-a-thon participants" - why? Are their edits supposed to be treated differently? Is this an office edict? 88.104.24.150 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not an edict. That's not even remotely what WP:OFFICE is about or for. Also: I'm using my volunteer admin account for a reason. We have separate (WMF) usernames to separate out when we're doing work for the WMF and when staff are just editing for fun. I repeat this disclaimer on my userpage, like most staff do. Steven Walling • talk 21:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 388: / Line 388: @@
 *'''Support lifting topic ban''' - Wee Curry Monster's knowledge and insight will be valuable on Falklands pages, and the above demonstrates that there is little risk of future behavioural issues. ''[[User:Kahastok|Kahastok]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Kahastok|talk]]''</small> 21:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 *'''Support''' lifting topic ban. It's an obvious net positive for the encyclopedia, and the steps taken (as outlined in the appeal) seem adequate to prevent it from causing any problems. I've also reviewed WCM's contributions in another dispute he's recently been involved in, and do not see any ongoing significant problem in behaviour or approach. --[[User:Demiurge1000|Demiurge1000]] ([[User_talk:Demiurge1000|talk]]) 22:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' I started doing some general cleanup in some of the articles you contributed to and your statement that your intention is to resume content creation raises some issues that I don't think you've addressed before. We recently cleared out a lot of word-for-word copy violations added by a different editor, unrelated to you, that are relevant here because they involved most of the pages that touch on Falkland Island topics. My concern is that, while helping, you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arana%E2%80%93Southern_Treaty&diff=prev&oldid=492575163 restored copy-violating text] in order to work on it, and I'm hoping that you agree that in the future, it's better to work on that material somewhere other than the mainspace and that copy vio problems should be treated with sufficient care. [[User:Elaqueate|<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ <span style="color:#000000">E L A Q U E A T E</span></span>]] 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 == [[Người Bắc Kỳ]] ==

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 22:06, 1 February 2014

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

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

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

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

Deletion discussions

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

Other types of closing requests

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

Proposal for indefinite block/ban

Issues with Derailing of Merger Discussion at Duke of Edinburgh's Award

Massive problem, definitely Wikipedia is about to end, and probably the entire world

RfC of interest

ISSUE REQUIRES AT LEAST SOME ATTENTION (over 24 hours)!!!!

WP Canvassing

The article

Admin who knows templates needed to fix fully protected, broken, and little watched template

Heads up

User:Khabboos

Wikipedia:Peer review/Orel Hershiser's scoreless inning streak/archive1

United States Public Policy talk page archive number 1

Notification of a TFA nomination

SEO spamming - a heads' up

blocking 208.180.10.131 for vandalism

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays

Fresh pair of eyes, please

Lifting of Topic Ban

비가 , 서스 ​​캐처 원 의 호수

International edit-a-thon today = newbies to avoid biting

Leave a Reply

비가 , 서스 캐처 원 의 호수