Template:Active editnotice

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

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

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

Thank you, MER-C (talk · contribs), for closing many of the proposals. Many of them remain open. Cunard (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.

If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can some admins please come and help out at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would admins close the following SfD discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub - already handled
2. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates - Needs action, see below
3. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
4. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport- Needs action, see below
5. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies- Needs action, see below
6. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub- Needs action, see below
7. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28 - already handled
8. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2 - already handled
9. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6 - already handled
10. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories - already handled
11. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories - already handled
12. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9#Several new English football stub types
13. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Ivory Coast sport templates
14. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Template:China-road-stub
15. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs
16. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/15#American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs
17. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/16#'Pre-' category maintenance
18. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/22#rail station -> railway station
19. Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/23#Portugal geography by District/Region categories

Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, but left unactioned as I didn't know what to do :3 Stop by my TP if you can tell me what specific action is needed. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Agathoclea (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions listed above. I've added several more SfDs, which have become overdue. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did all the new categories and templates for the rail transport but found a few categories and templates that were not nominated at that I recorded at User:Agathoclea/AWB#strays Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Cunard (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that I have utterly failed at the first hurdle in my attempts to mentor Treasury Tag. Apologies for wasting everyone's time. Perhaps a more skilled mentor would have more success. --Dweller (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what shall we do? Propose a topic ban for all deletion nominations? No nominations for deletion for AFD or prod permitted. But permit copyright violation and attack and vandalism speedy delete nominations. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, but perhaps not a surprise. I thought your proposed beginning editing restrictions during mentorship were fine - apart from "Don't write any whole words in edit summaries" which I just didn't understand. But I suspect this is because I didn't get the background problem which this is supposed to address. However TT flatly declined all the other proposed temporary restrictions (which would have left the vast majority of article space free to edit in) and as such I think no more skilled mentor could have achieved anything better. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it may have left the majority of article-space free for me to edit, I don't edit the majority of pages. Nobody does. We all have specific interests. While I wouldn't be banned from writing about the music of Argentina or God in Hinduism or cricket in Zimbabwe, I have no inclination and no competence to do so. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 10:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This idea of "there is a whole wiki to edit" always strikes me as missing the point (not to jump on you specifically Kim). I have zero interest in most of Wikipedia - and if the community stopped me editing pages I was interested in my response would just be to stop editing... --Errant ^(chat!) 11:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a moment, these restrictions were designed to be temporary and allow Dweller the manouverability to focus on the areas that were shown to be problematic. That TT dealt in absolutes and refused to even discuss them - even attacking the only editor who came forward to put himself out to help TT has actually disappointed me. If you don't understand a reason for a restriction then the best way to deal with that is not through sarcasm.

I know that discussions regarding sanctions were largely postponed due to the fact that there was a mentor available, if TT does not appear willing to try, then I do not see any other option. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could be a "start being a little nicer to people in words and actions" half of a two person mentoring team (if acceptable to TT). It would be limited to analysis, commentary and suggestions on behavior just in that area. Would be slower motion I have a 9 day period coming up when I'll be off the grid. The other person / half would would be more attuned to understanding/watching and dealing with their complex range of activities. Just an idea, don't know if it's viable. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have a mentor that I could trust, thanks, North8000. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 12:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, with that declination (and that mis-characterization which ignores the outcome) I'm bowing out. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that you would be willing to work with a mentor? Your comments on your talk page look to me like you are not willing to compromise, to limit yourself even in the early stages of the mentoring process. If you would like a mentoring team, perhaps I could help. You know my history and would you believe, I'm quite knowledgable on Doctor Who too. I do think you need to stop dealing in absolutes though and finding a solution that's acceptable to all Worm^TT · (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said repeatedly on my talkpage, I'm happy to work with a mentor provided that a compromise can be reached that doesn't involve an outright prohibition on all my normal Wikipedia activities. ╟─TreasuryTag►Odelsting─╢ 12:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is your 'normal Wikipedia activities' that are precisely the problem here. But let's try this another way.

• What, as you see it, is the problem with your editing that so many people have raised so many times?
• How do you suggest these problems be addressed? → ROUX ₪ 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Roux, you seem to believe that I'm under some sort of imperative here to (a) provide timely answers to any questions you may demand, and (b) to find a mentor and actively seek out editing restrictions.
  I won't insult your intelligence by going into detail about why (a) is bollocks, but as to (b) I think I should remind you that I am not currently blocked. I'm not currently topic-banned. There is currently no active proposal for me to be either blocked or topic-banned. And personally, I'm quite happy to 'take my chances' without a mentor, without being prohibited from editing in my areas of expertise, without being subjected to pathetic childish point-scoring and without receiving ultra vires demands to account for myself at any given opportunity. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to me that the simple thing is to preclude any activities that violate WP:BATTLEGROUND, pure and simple. Just stop trying to pick wiki-fights with people - I mean initiating this a whole 41 minutes after Dweller suggested this was...er...actually adjectives fail me here. Does anyone think TT will actually listen to any mentor anyway. I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the main problem is TT's inclination to delete everything, 2nd to the comments and demeanor when those deletions are contested. I would suggest that the comment given above by Graeme is a good one that TT be limited to prod deletions only relating to copyright violation, attacks and vandalism speedy delete nominations. At least temporarily. If after a couple months they get the communities trust back then perhps the restriction can be lifted. --Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more than a little unwise to have tried to delete Casliber's userspace draft without asking him first so quickly after the block ended. At worst what possible harm does it do for it to remain there indefinitely? I'd say very little. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, given this reply, it is obvious TT doesn't think he's done anything wrong whatsoever, doesn't need a mentor, doesn't need sanctions, so in which case, is there any other option but an indef block here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to see any productive editor blocked, much less indefinitely, but it does seem like mentoring has failed. I'd suggest, as does TT himself on his talk page, that he takes his chances now, along with the inevitable consequences if things don't change. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to speak against the casual application of indef blocks to experienced editors.  Why should this block be for more than 4 months at the outside, unless the powers that be are quietly encouraging a sock puppet to reappear that will be hamstrung?  Consider my viewpoint as that of a newbie, if that is appropriate, but after seeing what happened to User:Rememberway, I don't think the admins should ever be assigning indef blocks to experienced users.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renewing topic ban proposal

Continued disruption

Are pointy edits such as this really improving the encyclopedia? I don't understand why this type of behaviour by TT is tolerated by the community. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...arguably, TT seems right - the citations to support the statements there in the lead are a bit lack on a casual readthrough of the article, and not readily apparent in the body. That said, there's much less pointy and combative ways to say "this needs more references". --MASEM (t) 20:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to be fair that is probably the way to go - rather than this earlier edit by TT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The problem is that it was a completely pointy edit that served only to disrupt an article which receives approximately 1000 page views daily. If there were concerns they could have been expressed on the talk page, or through discussion when the edit was initially reverted. This was pure disruption to prove a point, regardless of the legitimacy of the concerns. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unreferenced weasel words from the lede of an article is not disruptive. It is Wikipedia policy. The fact that the article is frequently-viewed makes it even more important to adhere to our standards of verifiability. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 20:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, because the owners of that article feel unable to provide citations for the glowing praise of its subject, I've initiated an RfC on the talkpage. Well done folks – instead of just doing something simple, we're going to have 30 days of bureaucratic discussion. Good one. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 20:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC before even approaching a talk page discuss is further flaming the issue. As a simple comment on this whole thing, I think that's the problem that is at the core. TT is thinking in absolutes, those being the ultimate processes for resolving disputes (xFD, talk page RFC) instead of stepping through the steps that are more preferred and generally more helpful and friendlier to all involved. There's no requirement that these steps be done before the ultimate step is taken (sometimes its necessary), but at the same time, when this is the only steps that TT seems interested in taking, at the volumes TT edits at, that's disruptive. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely over the top - as no non-RFC talk page discussion has been suggested first. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Disruptive and not even borderline. I agree that the lead needs to be supported by cited text in the article body but there are a simpler ways of making that point rather than starting an RfC on a hitherto undiscussed issue. --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't feel able to engage in constructive discussion with an admin who baselessly accused me of being a "POV-pushing vandal." ╟─TreasuryTag►Subsyndic General─╢ 20:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've stated on my User talk page and at Talk:The New Yorker, TT's edits related to The New Yorker are clearly deliberate disruption -- and this is disruption that is unrelated to the ongoing topic ban discussion. --Orlady (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the fact that at least one of them is completely correct? The article claims that the New Yorker is well known for its fact checking, yet in the article the first mention of that is of a scandal where its fact checking was claimed to be poor! That's just bad writing. Either leave the {{cn}} tag there or remove the sentence. No opinion on the rest of it. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It took me just a couple of minutes to find a source for the assertion and add it to the article. I'm not sure who deserves blame, but making a huge, time-consuming dispute out of an easily fixed omission is disrutpive.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

In light of the ongoing combative behaviour not conducive to a collaborative environment, along with violations of the terms of his unblock (making allegations of misconduct in edit summaries rather than on noticeboards [1] [2]), I have placed an indefinite block on TreasuryTag's account. I believe TreasuryTag has exhausted the community's patience, but give leave in advance for another administrator to lift ^{or modify} this block if they feel it is no longer necessary or was made in error. –xeno^talk 21:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC) ^{22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Can't help but unfortunately agree. His argument that we have to follow a specific escalation pattern is pretty moot: he's wikilwayering, and just as we can skip from a 1m to 4m warning based on circumstances, it's clear that TT is testing and pushing a non-existent envelope. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like the only option left. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that (for all it's worth at this point) post-block, TT published an unauthorized IRC excerpt on his talk and, when advised that that was prohibited by irc policy, suggested that "someone had better block me, then". Does this call for redaction of the excerpt? Revdeletion? Removal of talk page access? None of those? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to suggest removal of talk page access. Revdelete sounds good as well. Agathoclea (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised that TT was allowed to publish IRC scripts. I think this is entirely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the excerpt-related content and advised TT to not restore it. I'm agnostic on the issue of revdeletion, and am fine with it if someone else decides to take that extra step. If TT does restore the log despite my warning, I very much suggest removal of talkpage access. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen beat me to the decline of the unblock. Good block by Xeno, good unblock decline reasoning by Gwen. Exceptionally poor form by Treasury Tag. TT has demonstrated a remarkable resistance to mitigating his problematic behavior and has torpedoed good faith efforts to mentor him I think the therapy session is over and it's time to 86 him for a while. WP:OFFER might be of some use, but I agree that a timed block is unlikely to do any good in this case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "for a while."

I'll stand a round if his latest "indef block" lasts longer than a week. It'll be reversed in a day or two and he'll once again chalk it up on his "scoreboard" of invulnerability.

I don't care about him publishing an IRC log if only he'd apologize afterwards, and maybe admit that he'd been in the wrong. As it is, everything is always someone else's fault and he's perpetually wikilawyering away at loopholes to prove it. We just don't need that behaviour at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. He contravened my request that he not restore the irc-related content and restored the thread minus the log itself. Rather a neat way of saying "fuck you" while retaining some chance his talkpage access won't be removed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? TT is a wikilawyer? He'll fight you tooth and nail on that charge (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, that's going to be a giant tab at the pub! I think the block is good and the unblock refusal is good. The editor is a net negative, taking skilled eyes away from improving the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please call these guys, who are a mere two blocks from my house, to arrange that beer. I prefer their porter. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block. We may want to consider closing the thread and having an uninvolved admin judge the consensus on the topic ban. When TT is eventually unblocked I believe such editing restrictions thus entering into effect will serve to help avoid the issues that have led to the present situation. N419BH 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think its rather sad for the project that people feel that this block will be reversed sometime soon. If it is it will show severe lack of judgement from the unblocking admin given how practically universal the arguments for stronger restrictions on treasury tag have been. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is his third "indefinite" block. As blocks just don't stick to this editor, he has developed a mentality that they shouldn't stick to him and that blocking is just something for the little people. An editor who keeps a scoreboard that's positively crowing over how little block time was actually served, "TreasuryTag has received 907 hours' worth of blocks, plus two times ∞, though has only actually been blocked for 356 hours and 12 minutes" just isn't realising that the problem might be with their behaviour, not the blocking admins. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship offer by Worm That Turned

FYI folks. User:Worm That Turned has offered to mentor TT ([3]). I think if TT accepts mentorship, he should be unblocked. I know Worm's mentoring and he is a great mentor. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why enacting the topic ban (which would be valid during mentoring) is important. The only understanding - should TT accept mentoring - is that if either: TT formally (by words) or informally (by actions) stops being mentored by Worm, OR Worm determines that mentorship is no longer fruitful, the indef block is reapplied. Might wanna have a 3 strike rule, but that might be wikilawyered to death, so make it an LBW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, and he'll suddenly find these "unacceptable' restrictions acceptable? I doubt it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much time do we have to waste on this? 99.9% of our userbase manages to behave reasonably - shouldn't we concentrate on them? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that mentorship of TT at this time will be beneficial to the project is not one I would support. The topic ban wouldn't help either, he would just choose another sector to disrupt. Something happened to TT's interaction with the project a couple of months ago and since then he has been a train wreck in action. WP:Standard offer and only if he accepts mentorship in six months time would be my offer. Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't spotted this. Firstly, thanks PC for the vote of confidence, I really appreciate it. I wasn't planning to mention it here, since anyone interested would already be watching TT's page. In my experience, the community is a very forgiving one, and if TT and I can come to some arrangement whereby he is not causing issues and we can move forward - I expect the community in general would allow me to have a go.

For the record, I have mentored a few other users when they were teetering on the edge, and I have had both successes and failures. Importantly, I think it should be known that I am willing to step up to the plate and summarily block my own mentees if mentorship is failing, and the only reason that they are unblocked is my mentorship. As such, it can be properly regarded as a "last chance"

However, the whole thing does take (at least) two willing participants, and so this whole point could be moot depending on TT's level of interest. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support Worm's idea. Although I've not personally interacted with TT, I've seen some of his interactions with others, particularly when he appears on ANI, and in general he doesn't help so much as fan the flames. Be watched or be gone, I say. Perhaps, something more "in your face" is required to make sure he knows that this is his last chance; TT should accept Worm's mentorship unconditionally or face a community ban. strong words, I know, but sometimes hitting them with a tree works better than smacking them with a twig repeatedly. --Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add my non-admin opinion here, I would at this time say this is a bad idea. The numebr of blocks that TT had had, including the indef-blocks that were reverted strike me as a "and we really really REALLY mean it this time" gesture, and aren't taken seriously. At this point, I feel it's better for the project if TT stays away for a period of time, and if they come back with a genuine mindset to be civil, them maybe this should be considered. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I can see that point of view, blocks on Wikipedia are founded on the idea that they're not meant to punish, but prevent harm - what's more indefinite blocks are placed until something changes to render them un-necessary. However, this discussion is still currently moot. Worm^TT · (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and respect your decision to mentor TT, which is admirable. I just think it's a fruitless measure unfortunately. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the first, and you won't be the last Worm^TT · (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Though this doesn't bode well. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 19:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is significant value in blocking users for a decent period of time before taking them to indef. Certainly MickMacNee was never blocked beyond a few days before going indef and I think that's bad. There is a reasonable chance that a 1-3 month ban followed by mentoring will be successful. Far greater IMO than unblocking now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page title altered

TreasuryTag has modified the displayed title on his talk page so that it is no longer identified as a User talk page. I've never seen that before (but maybe I just don't get around much). Another user restored the heading, but was reverted by another admin. Is it kosher to remove the name space label from the page? --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mine not showing on my user page - never heard anyone question it. I'd be interested to know if it was a problem. Worm^TT · (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But your talk page is clearly identifiable as such. --Orlady (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's harmless, in my opinion. I think it's a fairly common thing to modify one's user page or user talk page title in such a way. I doubt anyone's confused whether it's a user talk page, since TT has a couple of banners at the top that say that it is. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spend a lot of time working with very new users, and wanted to make sure it was clear for them. If my interests lay elsewhere, I probably would have changed the talk title too. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that many editors do this and that it's fine. See User talk:Splarka for an interesting one. Jenks24 (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine's altered that way too (along with colors to match my signature), and I know of at least one admin (HJ Mitchell) who does so as well with colors and font changes. It's not a problem especially when combined with edit notices and talk page banners, which most of us have. The removal of the topic ban notification with the edit summary "rm lynch mob", however, is a problem. N419BH 06:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:TALKNEW, major headings should not be used to be critical of or attack other editors, and should generally not be addressed to specific editors. Hat headings are major headings, and the header below violates all three of those principles. It's childish that BeyondMyKen felt the need to do this in the first place, absurd that he was pugnacious enough to continue doing it after I changed it, and thoroughly disgusting that other editors support the act. If this kind of trolling can occur on wp:AN, then it surely explains a whole lot of what's wrong with wikipedia. useless crapulence… --Ludwigs2 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to create a new article for Karin Kloosterma​n. Whenever I click on that, and choose the "Create this page" tab, I get the message:

Unauthorized

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The page title that you have attempted to create contains a non-breaking space or other unusual space character. Such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace them with ordinary spaces and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

If you have a good reason for creating a page with this title, or if you receive this message when attempting to edit an existing page, please let us know at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, as well as a brief explanation of what you were trying to do. Thank you.

So, what's going on? I never had this problem before when creating articles. There is nothing unusual about the title. Dream Focus 11:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the letter "a" in "man", which is not a regular "a" (click on your redlink then look at the url) - try Karin Kloosterman instead. Bencherlite^Talk 11:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copy and pasted the name from somewhere. It loads up exactly the same in Firefox. I don't see any difference at all. Dream Focus 11:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the computer does — you've got a zero-width space between the final two characters of the last name, and Wikipedia articles can't include them, except of course for http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E2%80%8B&redirect=no. The "a" is the same as normal. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's what it is! I saw the code junk before the final letter and assumed the problem was the penultimate letter - hadn't seen a zero-width space before. Mind you, they're probably hard to spot, not having any width... Bencherlite^Talk 11:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, problem solved, thank you. I successfully created the article at Karin Kloosterman‎. Dream Focus 11:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user userpage User:Teach4Morocco, out of scope.--Musamies (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can just tag stuff like that G11, you know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence - discussion on this issue has been going on for months and it would be nice to have an uninvolved admin close the RFC. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? :( –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I posted a template for assistance some time ago and my request has yet to be properly addressed. Could somebody please glance over here? Thank you. SplashScreen (talk) 00:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden has snow closed 19 hours early Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics. At least 2 editors before he last logged in queried him of his decision. He had not replied.

I ask the reopening of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and let the afd run it's course and let an admin close the discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information: Spartaz has reclosed the discussion as keep (not snow/speedy keep). It was still a little early. LadyofShalott 13:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Closed by Joe Decker.

Would it be possible for this AfD to be either closed or relisted? Thanks. SuperMarioMan 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am asking 2 things:

1. Please warn and block the anon user here who keeps vandalizing Wikipedia. This anon user has been warned and reported to admins already but he/she keeps doing it.

2. Please protect economy of Iran indefinitely so that only established users can edit it.

Thanks. SSZ (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Two edits in as many months isn't generally enough to earn a block. You're free to warn him yourself. If there's something else going on, please point it out.
2. I'm seeing far too much editing by IPs to be comfortable putting a semi on that article. Of the last 50 edits, the vast majority are by IPs, and I don't see the massive levels of vandalism that would be required to justify removing their ability to edit the page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lifebaka. The article is a GA, but there is hardly enough disruption to warrant protection. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Beyond My Ken closing User:Ludwigs2's proposal above to allow refactoring of other people's comments, Ludwigs2 has refactored Beyond My Ken's closing comment. This is beyond pointy, IMO. I reverted this once, Ludwigs2 reinstated the refactoring, so I now turn it over to this board to handle. 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it again. I don't think there is any way to defend substantively changing the closing statement and leaving it to appear as if the statement was still made by the closer. Monty₈₄₅ 21:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he does it again, he'll be blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the editor who originally proposed placing Sarah Palin-related articles on community probation back in January 2009, a proposal that was ultimately adopted. This was in the wake of the wheel war ArbCom case and various other insanity regarding the articles. There have been various flare-ups regarding the articles since - particularly when Bristol Palin appeared on Dancing With the Stars and during the aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting, but it always seemed in the context of a political battleground between partisans for a "President Sarah Palin" and partisans of President Obama.

I think things have finally settled down to the point to where we can lift the probation. A few weeks ago, an attack biography by Joe McGinniss about Palin was released, and there was surprisingly little battling over the article - issues were settled easily by talk page discussion. And a couple of days ago, Palin announced she will not be running for President against Obama, which should relieve the partisan pressure on both sides. I propose removing the community probation. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse lifting the probation which has served its purpose. The probation is administered here: Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Except for one warning in September, the last warnings were issued in January 2011. The last two blocks were issued in April 2011 and December 2010. Now that Palin has decided to not run for US president, it is unlikely that she will be as polarizing a figure as she was at the time the probation was voted in by the community. Keeping stale probations in place serves as a disincentive to editors who may legitimately fear getting blocked for engaging in a disagreement. It's time to bring this to a successful conclusion. Any future disruptions can be handled through ordinary procedures.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no issues with the probation being lifted, it may perhaps be better if one were to lift the same a few days (perhaps ten days more?) from now, as the current news of her not running for the post may have died down by then. Wifione ^Message 07:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palin will always be in the news. There's no reason to expect that her announcement will lead editors to engage in the disruptive behaviors which led to this community-imposed remedy two-and-a-half years ago. It's been reasonably peaceable for the past year or more.

The effect of lifting this probation is to remove the hair trigger. Any uninvolved admin could no longer topic ban an editor after only a single warning. That's a lower threshold than used with most ArbCom probations, where an enforcement would usually follow a structured discussion and consensus at AE. Lifting the probation would not undo the previous individual topic bans imposed by the ArbCom, the community, or admins under the probation. But it would reaffirm our assumption of the good faith of the current and future editors.   Will Beback  talk  09:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wbroun (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing articles with the intention of demonstrating to classes that Wikipedia can be changed with malicious intent (as it can). However, he has been clearly vandalizing pages since 2007. Although it might be with good intent, it really isn't allowed by policy. I'm not sure exactly what should be done about it, but when confronted previously he maintains that

"No offense, but I edit these strictly for educational purposes in a classroom setting. Students often cite Wikipedia on academic papers, something a demonstration of Wikipedia's vulnerabilities helps discourage."

I'm not sure exactly needs to be done, but it's a unique situation to say the least. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could warn him that *leaving* the vandalism in place would be a problem, but if he self-reverted after showing the students the vandalized version rendered, it would be acceptable as a demonstration? Or help him set up a sandbox article for his demonstration, rather than doing it in the main articlespace? (Just my non-admin opinion, as an idea for a way to be able to show it without actively being disruptive.) rdfox 76 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Vandalism only block? "Something a demonstration of Wikipedia's blocking policies"? Strictly for educational purposes of course. We want his class to know what happens when folks vandalize Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 00:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rdfox 76's proposal of a Sandbox may be a good idea. We could create a WP:FAKEARTICLE in a sandbox on his page. However, vandalizing actual articles even if he reverts is a violation of WP:POINT.--v/r - TP 00:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note I have blocked the account indefinitely as a VOA. We do not promote vandalism of any form on Wikipedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is he isn't a vandalism only account. Especially earlier in his contribution history he's made valid changes. He is doing this misguidedly, but not out of malice. I think we need to AGF. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I have to agreed with NativeForeigner here. Eagle, you may want to take another look at his contribs. I was joking when I said this was a VOA.--v/r - TP 00:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without commenting on the block, I would like to mention that some time ago I created a fake article in my userspace specifically to be used for testing purposes like this. It's at User:Beeblebrox/fake blp. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no tolerance for teachers who believe their vandalizing Wikipedia is constructive. I've seen this many times before and it frustrates me to no end. A month or two ago, an IP repeatedly vandalized the Philadelphia Eagles article for "a class assignment." Wbroun edited constructively three years ago, but the only purpose for the account now is to vandalize. WP:VANDNOT does not cover "instructional purposes." Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's justified for a block. But in this particular situation indefinite seems unduly harsh. If a hard precedent is set, I have no doubt he'll follow it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Wbroun promises to stop vandalizing, I'll shorten the block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indef is exactly right when we know that vandalism from the account is going to continue. Now, if there's a promise that the vandalism will stop, then we can consider a shorter period. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with T. Canens: Eagles' block is spot-on. There are plenty of editors (myself included) who would be willing to work with teachers to get their point across to their students without damaging our articles, but repeatedly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point simply can't be tolerated, especially considering they've been repeatedly asked not to. 28bytes (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose we want to prove it is possible to go to the moon. How? We (we as in some people just like us) go there once, or a few time to make sure the first was not a rare lucky event. Then we document it. To show such voyage is possible for other people, other generations, you show them the documentation, you do not repeatedly take them to the moon. That is, if Wbroun has done this repeatedly, quite likely he (or someone else of us) may write a nice report - an essay...? - about it. Then he would show it to his class, no need to repeat the process indefinitely. - Nabla (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 18^th April 2011, I was given a topic ban [11] from the good article process on Wikipedia for nominating and reviewing articles with little understanding of GA policies, and furthermore repeating them when I had been told not to do so. I was also blocked, [12], for a week, as a harsh little reminder to abide by the rules; this block was ended early because I accepted mentorship from User:Worm That Turned. Since then I have been editing in almost every other area of the wiki, from article creation and deletion, from userboxes, through RfA and DYK. I also regularly help out at the help desk, and do a regular vandalism patrol. So this shows that I can, and have, kept my nose out of GA for six months and avoided further blocking. I have been in a few scrapes since then, including a misunderstanding of AfD closures and copyright issues.

I am here now to ask for a lifting of that GA topic ban. This does not mean that the second it is lifted I will run around crazily nominating or reviewing with no respect for any guidelines; I am just asking so that if, at anytime in the future, I feel any need to, for instance one of my articles I have created could be good enough to take a review. I have also spent the six months looking at the GA process, looking at nominations, reviews, the criteria, rules, policies, guidelines etc, and promise on my not-currently-blocked user account's life to abide by them.

You may also wish to review my contributions, and read the following links. My editor review, My contributions, [13], [14], [15], and especially here. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 16:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you run this by your mentor first? If so, what is his opinion of this request? 28bytes (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't, although he has asked Worm, myself, the administrator who blocked him, and the administrator who imposed the ban, to comment here. Worm takes the view that Rcsprinter has completed his mentorship so he's not technically Rcsprinter's mentor any more, although he's still happy to offer advice where necessary (and I think he intends to comment on this request in due course.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to decide if I should comment here or move it to AN, since it's not really an incident. Anyway, comment here - Demiurge has correctly summed up my opinion, I "released" Rcsprinter back into the wild back in July, and I think it's commendable that he waited until now to put forward a request to have the topic ban lifted. He's come on a very long way since April (when he'd only been around a few months and made a couple of thousand edits) - to be a mature editor with over 11k edits under his belt. Yes, he made mistakes in the past and I'm sure he'll make them in the future, but I'd trust him to be able to good article reviews. I guess this request is largely to show the community has restored their trust him, and I'd like to see that happen. As such, I'd Support lifting the topic ban. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright discussion on his talk page worries me a bit, to be honest. I haven't done any GA reviews myself, but I would think a solid grasp of the copyright policies would be a prerequisite to useful participation there, wouldn't it? 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's part of 1(a) of the criteria. However, I am confident Rcsprinter does understand copyright policies - he just prioritizes them incorrectly. Demiurge1000 and I are working on encouraging him to remember that copyright is something that is essential to all parts of wikipedia, at all times, and even if an article needs improving, a copyvio is not the way to do it. It may not have been the best time to put this request up, based on those discussions and there's only one person who can tell you why he decided to put it up now. Worm^TT · (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per 28bytes, I have concerns about the Copyright issues as well as his recent issues with non-Admin AfD closures (particularly related to his reasoning for closure as it would relate to his reasoning when undertaking a GA review) , at this time I'd support a relaxation allowing him to nominate his own articles but would opppose allowing him to nominate articles to which he isn't the primary contributor or undertaking reviews of GA candidates until such time as he has some at least some successful nominations of his own articles to show an understanding of the criteria. This seems to be in line with the reasons he wishes to have the ban lifted and would demonstrate good faith both by him, and in him. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good compromise; allow nominations, and if that goes well, expand it to reviews. (The "trial review" idea below also seems like it's worth trying.) 28bytes (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little hesitant to support on a whim. Can we just ignore the ban for a minute and have them perform one GA review to demonstrate their competency? If it's fine, I'll fully support and I'm sure everyone else will. If (worst case) they somehow screw up, I'll be happy to simply step in and complete the review for them (I've done so in the past), and decide whether to oppose from there. Swarm 18:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Swarm's proposal is reasonable, support suspending the ban to allow one GA review, and reopen discussion upon completion. Monty₈₄₅ 18:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rcsprinter123 asked me to comment here. Because the ban was imposed as a result of the community finding that Rcsprinter123 lacked the understanding of the GA process and criteria that is necessary to participate usefully in GA work, I think that a convincing demonstration how this has now changed would need to be part of any request to lift the ban. As no such demonstration is given here, I cannot support the request at this time. The proposal of allowing a trial review, above, seems reasonable.  Sandstein  18:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The proposal to allow RCSprinter123 to nominate his own articles for GA should be allowed. As for reviewing others articles, the allowance of a one artice trial is reasonable, but another editor should also give a second opinion on the review. If this proves successful, then maybe a few more articles could be reviewed under the same conditions before a request to release this editor from the restriction can be allowed. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reservations based on very recent issues brought up on Rcsprinter123's talkpage (for some reason spread through 3 different talkpage archives). I'm not convinced he fully understands the seriousness of copyright issues, purely because these problems have only been in the last week, and I'd like to see positive edits in that area over a longer period. I commend his recent work to clear up problems that have come to light. The AFD problems seem to indicate that he still maybe needs to slow down a little and listen a bit more when he does get into "scrapes". He doesn't always respond when legitimate issues are brought to his talkpage; indeed he has no obligation to, but communication is an important part of GA. I would completely oppose a lift of the ban on reviewing GAs at this time, unless there is compelling evidence that he is able to do so competently. I don't have a problem with him nominating articles at GA, and getting some articles through the GA process could be a good way for him to learn the ropes. --BelovedFreak 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Discussion has been moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Rcsprinter (chatter) 09:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]