[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reaper Eternal (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 1 November 2012 (→‎Second chance for User:Claritas?: Unbanned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Template:Active editnotice

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

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

      Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Technical instructions for closers

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

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


      Other areas tracking old discussions

      Administrative discussions

      ANI thread concerning Yasuke

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

      (Initiated 14 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

       Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Requests for comment

      RFA2024, Phase II discussions

      Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

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

       Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 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]

      During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Gigi Hadid#RfC: Israeli-Palestinian conflict

      (Initiated 61 days ago on 23 May 2024) Last response was 50 days ago. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:RSN#RfC: The Times of India

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 17 June 2024) Discussion appears ready for a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Dorchester Review

      (Initiated 32 days ago on 21 June 2024) RFC template has expired and conversation has died down. TarnishedPathtalk 01:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Titles of European monarchs

      (Initiated 30 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      (Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Thomas Niedermayer#RfC: Article Lede: opening sentence and nature of death - should the opening sentence be changed to "Thomas Niedermayer [...] was kidnapped and killed by the Provisional IRA"?

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 4 July 2024) - Consensus appears to have been reached with a 6-to-1 WP:AVALANCHE. RfC has been open a little over a week and all participants but one are in agreement. BRMSF (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      6 !votes within 8 days is not in SNOW close territory. There's no rush to close this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It has been over two weeks now, and a consensus seems to have been achieved; thus far only a single person objects to the proposed revised wording. BRMSF (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Apr May Jun Jul Total
      CfD 0 0 3 20 23
      TfD 0 0 0 4 4
      MfD 0 0 0 2 2
      FfD 0 0 0 0 0
      RfD 0 0 4 34 38
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 12#IRC +10414

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 26 May 2024) This RfD has been open for over a month. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

      (Initiated 60 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

      (Initiated 56 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]

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

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

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

      (Initiated 44 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 111#When can titles contain "massacre"?

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 16 June 2024), last comment was 24 June 2024. Is there consensus in this discussion (if any) on when the word "massacre" is appropriate in an article, especially from a WP:NPOv perspective.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024 July#ABC News (United States)

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 4 July 2024) No new comments in a few days. May be ripe for closure. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Block extension review

      Please see User_talk:Delicious_carbuncle#October_2012 and related discussion User_talk:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise#Revert_please Nobody Ent 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I don't see a problem with the block extension. DC's claim that blocked users get additional leeway on their talk pages is in conflict with the principle itself. Block users do not get to use their talk pages to continue disputes in a calculated manner, they are given more leeway because it is recognized they may be angry and lash out due to the block. Further, declaring that one will sit out the block without indicating they will stop the behavior they were blocked for seems like a good reason to extend the block. If they don't recognize they can't keep doing the things that got them blocked, then the blocks should be continued until they do. MBisanz talk 23:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Reasonable extension, since he was again intentionally violating the I-ban. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      An interaction ban is a way of telling two or more users that the community finds that they do more harm than good when they interact or comment on one another. DC is free to disagree with this position, but he is not free to deliberately ignore a valid community imposed sanction. If he lacks the self control to just leave it alone then blocking is more than appropriate. Personally I feel like he is getting off lightly since this is such an obvious case of deliberate, premeditated violation of said restrictions. I don't like that we have to do things this way, it would be better if people who openly despise each other could just grow up and learn to avoid one another, but that clearly is not the case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree with extension- DC's first post after the block did not violate the interaction ban. Then, an admin pokes him about it, and DC responds. Later, Future Perfect shows up and lengthens the block. This looks like entrapment by the admin corps. "Hey, why don't you go bait DC into commenting on his block, while he's hot and bothered by just being blocked, and then I will swoop in and lengthen it?" Of course, that probably isn't how it happened, but this is what it looks like. Since an admin needled him about it, DC probably thought it was ok to talk about it. We non-admin editors believe that you admins are united in thought when acting in an administrative capacity. So, if this extension stands, shouldn't Drmies be blocked for baiting DC? Cla68 (talk) 23:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The extension is fine. If DC thinks that he can ignore the interaction ban as long as he "sits out the block", then perhaps we should give him a block he can't sit out. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I like this. Copping a block on the chin, and being willing to sit it out, is now evidence that you don't take it seriously and so the block should be extended? What a load of crap, especially since complaining about the block would doubtless be interpreted the same way. Reyk YO! 23:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Come on y'all, I was asking DC to explain themselves. I was hoping they'd say something that would get them unblocked and they didn't---but to turn around and make their answer a rationale for increasing the block, well, this is AN so I should mind my words. It's wrong. You could cut their TPA, for instance, which would be silly enough, but their clarification of why they did what they did cannot be a reason for increasing. It seems obvious to me that a renewed violation would lead to a very, very long block, but come on--I asked him. If you want to be consistent then you should, as Cla68 suggests, block me for baiting. That wouldn't be the worst thing to happen (I got an essay I need to finish...), but it would sodomize my perfectly virginal block log. Ah yes. Also, see my comments at DC's talk page, please. Drmies (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problematic part for me is: "It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given." If a user has no intent of respecting a ban because they are always willing to take whatever sanction is given for the breach of the ban, why should they be permitted to keep editing if it is clear they will just keep breaking the ban and hope they win on the ratcheting math of sanctions? MBisanz talk 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Once he's declared he has no intent of abiding by the ban and has broken the ban at least once, I don't see why an indef block until he agrees to abide by the ban is a bad idea. MBisanz talk 00:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm getting it from "It was possible for me to break the interaction ban because I am willing to sit out whatever block I was going to be given. It's just that simple." and "I'm content to sit out blocks for things that I have done . . ." MBisanz talk 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)Actually blocks are preventative not punitive. So if he states he intends to break his ban, the obligations is to block him before he does so in order to prevent the action. We don't block afterwards just to punish them. -DJSasso (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocks are rarely handed out before a person commits an infraction. Thus, blocks are corrective, as in used to correct the behavior of WP editors. That's why blocks of increasing duration are used. No additional corrective action was needed for this situation, per the comments above. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies: I don't see how "If I choose to be, I'll still be here editing after ChrisO/L'ecrivant/Helatrobus/Prioryman/etc is banned", which was the first infraction during that thread, was in any way triggered or provoked by what you said or asked. It was just a gratuitous expression of hostility thrown in without any other reason at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But, it did look like an invitation to discuss the block didn't it? If he had said something about Prioryman in a more polite tone after Drmies' invitation, would you still have done what you did? Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if it had been such an invitation, DC is intelligent enough to know that he is not allowed to discuss Prioryman even if invited (by a third party). Besides, there is a difference between an invitation to discuss his block and an invitation to discuss Prioryman – nothing in what he said about Prioryman was in any obvious way pertinent to whatever answer he meant to give to Drmies' questions. (And, as I said, the first infraction came before Drmies even asked him that question.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Future Perfect, you and DC have history. A couple of years ago, a previous sanction of yours against DC at AE was overturned on appeal. There are over 600 admins here. Would it not have been wiser to let someone else handle it? AndreasKolbe JN466 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Drmies is an admin, correct? So, that conversation, initiated by him, was between him and DC, right? Your fellow admin, Drmies, has asked you not to intervene in the conversation that he and DC were having, correct? So, you're basically telling Drmies to piss off? How about you admins get on the same page so us editors don't have to suffer the consequences of the inconsistent and misleading messages you send us? Or, based on your past history with DC, did you see an opportunity to get a hit in while he was down? Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Cla68, yes, Drmies is an admin. Now please let Fut. Perf. respond to my remarks, and stop adding fuel to the fire. Sheesh. Do you think that setting one up against the other will make a difference? No, I didn't ask them to not intervene! Kolbe, that goes for you too: your comments are unproductive, and you should be the last one (since YRC is blocked) to comment here in the name of objectivity. Fut. Perf., I see what the remark was that made you lengthen the block, but consider that they spoke rashly, and weren't repeated afterward. Revert to the original block length--if DC continues to walk the same roads their next block will be much longer, and if they do, it doesn't matter whether they do so two weeks from now or four weeks from now. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Everyone, Drmies is politely asking us to back off and let him handle it. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If a user is topic/interaction/etc. banned from discussing topic X, but administrators are discussing topic X with the user while they are blocked, how can a user respond to messages other than to violate the ban itself? The only response that doesn't violate the ban would be to not reply at all. It seems to me like that is what is happening, and we probably shouldn't extend blocks for violating a topic/interaction/etc. ban based on discussing the original block for the same ban. To comment on Delicious carbuncle directly, his quotes are not convincing of someone who is going to continue on after the block, so I don't see the need to tack on another two weeks. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. Drmies was not discussing Prioryman with D.C. He was discussing D.C.'s decision to break his interaction ban. D.C. could very easily have responded to that without adding yet more accusations against the other party. And, as I'm sure I have pointed out before but people keep strangely overlooking, his first attack against Prioryman was not in response to any question of Drmies at all. That said, even if Drmies had asked a direct question regarding Prioryman, D.C. could easily have responded with "sorry, I can't comment on that without breaking the restriction again". It is a standard part of interaction bans that we expect people to exercise this amount of self-discipline; if we didn't, all interaction bans would be futile (any i-banned editor could get some friends to innocently "ask" them about their opponents on their talk page from time to time, giving them perfect opportunities to vent against them to their heart's content). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't saying that anyone should be able to respond to talk page messages from friends about it, that would violate the interaction ban and they should be blocked for that. I was saying rather, if they are blocked for an interaction ban and they are discussing the ban itself (whether they mention the user or not) it's unavoidable to be discussing the topic they were banned for and that itself violates the interaction ban: WP:IBAN - For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. Emphasis mine. Like you said, I guess a refusal to comment is probably they best option, but.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It says here: Users who are blocked are asked to use this as a chance to reflect, an opportunity to show their understanding and ability to act responsibly, and a period of time to let the matter pass and be learned from. Drmies was in a dialogue with DC consistent with that purpose when FPAS interjected themselves into the situation by a block with the comment And since you are so willing to sit out blocks, indicating to me the block was punitive for engaging in a good faith discussion with Drmies. As Drmies had already replied to a mention of Prioryman without comment about that violating the ban, FPas's action has the gestalt of wheel war (I know it's not a technical violation). Blocks are supposed to be a last resort, and there were several actions FPas could have taken -- suggested to Drmies the conversation was inappropriate, restricted talk page access, for two. The fact that he has a prior history with DC also makes his intervention suspect.
      • It's been pointed out above, in my opinion correctly, that DCs intentional, tactical decision to violate the ban to get an ANI lick in is reason to consider an indef block. That's a reasonable option (indef block until DC agrees to abide by interaction ban). But it didn't need to happen whilst Drmies and DC were in dialog. It didn't need to come from FPas, and that's not what happened. What happened was FPas saw an opportunity to punish DC for breaking the speech code and took it. Technically correct? Yes, DC said the P-word. Remembering that we're not supposed to be a bureucracy, appropriate in the context of the location and tenor of the discussion? No. Nobody Ent 13:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ent, I think that on the whole I agree with you, esp. the bureaucracy part. I see no harm in allowing a user like DC discussing a topic on their talk page when asked by an admin. Surely such leeway is allowed: "sorry I can't speak because I am not allowed to talk about this topic" is silly. I would like to hear DC say "I won't do it again anywhere" but that's probably too much to ask. I won't dispute the original block, but I continue to disagree with the extension, and hope that other admins will weigh in here. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "I won't dispute the original block, but I continue to disagree with the extension" pretty much sums it up perfectly for me. GiantSnowman 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Original Duration We should not punish an editor for breaking a topic ban when the offending edit is responsive to an administrator's question. The question should not be whether it was possible to respond without violating the iban, but whether the response in question was reasonably germane to the discussion the administrator initiated. Monty845 16:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Originally, the IBAN was set up to keep those two users apart - because they simply could not get on, and conversations between the two caused escalating drama. I think both of FPAS's blocks related to the IBAN (this extension, and his first block) were too over the top and more related to punishment than actually reducing drama (which is my totem for whether to block or not). Some extra context is needed too: part of the problem is that DC had identified Prioryman as a problem user to keep an eye on. In doing so he kept raising Prioryman's past behaviour and current issues in various venues. Prioryman and he fell out over that and from this their interactions escalated into abusing each other. I always told DC, in no uncertain terms, that he did not need to "watch" Prioryman, others were perfectly capable of doing that if it was warranted. In this case, though, he raises a couple of issues (ironically on his talk page, not in the AN/I thread - which was a ridiculous jibe) that seem to have been missed - most notably that in his unlock request r.e. his outing of another editor it appears he was already asking in March not to use their name. This is a very concerning issue which might need to be addressed (I don't know how, blocks not being punitive). What is also concerning is DC's stated acceptance of gaming the IBAN process (i.e. he will accept a block to say things about Prioryman). This, obviously, is not a good situation and I think that rather than a block escalation this time it merely be recorded, and made explicitly clear, that if this is his approach to the IBAN then the community approach to blocks will be to make them dramatically more expensive (I'd say next time: 3 month, 6 months, indef). --Errant (chat!) 16:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Second chance for User:Claritas?

      This has been open for several days, and I see a good consensus here for an unban. Several of the users have encouraged Claritas (talk · contribs) to seek mentoring with Carrite (talk · contribs), something I'd encourage him to follow up on. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      User:Claritas has requested to be unblocked under the Standard offer (original request here), and has asked for it to be discussed here. At present, I personally take no position on the issue one way or the other, having not researched the situation leading up to the block; he does, however, appear to fulfil the requirements. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • CU isn't turning anything up. Bear in mind that this user was still in High School when he started to be a pain in the situpon, and is now a university student, it is well within the bounds of possibility that he has grown up at last. Support the unblock with the mentorship idea though. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Does he edit any other wiki projects? If so, that might provide extra evidence of improved behaviour. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Elen - one of the concepts in the Standard Offer is to show work elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      He has been active on Commons and Wikiversity. Judging by his behavior there, no, he has not grown up at last or in the least. In this Commons discussion (June 2012) he's a) lying about his past socking on Wikipedia and b) refusing another editor the courtesy that he is asking of us here (in fact he even states " I can be hypocritical if I want to" once he is called out on lying about his socks). In this Wikiversity thread (April 2012) he's being, well, basically a total jerk to someone simply because he can (" You weren't obliged to put this on Wikipedia" - yes, but the person would've failed a class if they hadn't, so it wasn't much of a "choice" as he well knows). Overall there's a pattern of "Please be nice to me, but I get to be abusive others if I want to" kind of mentality there (as he freely admits, it's hypocrisy).
      I'm not going to formally oppose this because I do believe people deserve second chances (or is this his third?), but I feel very very sorry for whoever ends up as his mentor. Volunteer Marek  18:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      No longer. The work somewhere else stuff was removed 7 months ago. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As an concession to the other projects who felt (not inaccurately) that "foisting" our problem editors on them as a matter of course was not conductive to anything positive. That said, there's no reason we can't take the existence of good work on another project as a good sign – it's just not cool to require it at the other projects' detriment.

      (That said, the diff Volunteer Marek picked up are most certainly not good signs IMO). — Coren (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      This definitely isn't going to lead anywhere productive.--v/r - TP 14:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
      Reyk, your contributions include this edit, which in the words of WP:BAN is "undermining or sabotage" of the encyclopedia to restore an edit of a banned editor.  Do you still think that what you personally believe to be "common sense" overrides the "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow" that states, "The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good."?  Given your absence of objection to Claritas/Anthem of Joy editing while banned at [Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 89#AfD nominations and de jure WP:Banning_Policy], what difference does it make that Claritas has not socked for six months?  Claritas states, "I do now also recognize that sockpuppetry is always disruptive, and the "good-editing sockpuppet" can actually be far more problematic than an obvious vandal or troll."  Which is the superior viewpoint, your "common sense" approach, or Claritas' most recent statement?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nice straw man you've set up. You've attempted to equate me wanting to keep closed AfDs closed with me undermining your personal misinterpretation of the banning policy before. That idea was laughed out of court, so I don't understand why you'd bring it up again. As for the other conversation you link to, nowhere do I say anything like what you're claiming. Too bad. Thanks for playing but, per WP:DNFTT, I will not be indulging you any further. Maybe you can amuse yourself with a solitaire round of "hunt the adjective" or something. Reyk YO! 04:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a discussion about Claritas, so the edit summarized by the edit comment, "Sshh! What's that? Is it the sound of my mocking laughter?" is reasonably hatted.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose I still do consider behaviour and actions on other Wikimedia projects as important. I am all in favour of second chances, but the recent lack of maturity found in the smattering of edits elsewhere (as shown by Volunter Marek) show me that Claritas is not quite ready to be a part of any such community. WP:OFFER isn't just about going away for awhile, it's about proving you understand why you were blocked/banned in the first place, and showing us the behaviours will not be repeated (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to say, if I were to be mentored, I can see myself working well with Worm That Turned. I regret being rude over at Commons and Wikiversity, but I have quality contributions to both projects, and never came under sanctions while I worked on them. I will make a serious effort not to repeat that sort of flippant behaviour over here.--Claritas § 20:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)Copied from user:Claritas's talkpage
      • weak oppose I'm a big fan of second chances, but A) socking like that is a pretty bright line and B) the problems identified by VM on other Wikimedia sites isn't encouraging. If allowed back, I'd certainly want a mentor. Worm would be fine if willing. I would also ideally like a 6 month ban from XfDs given past problems. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hobit, happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write. Claritas § 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC) copied from User:Claritas's talkpage
      • Support unban not giving users a chance to return after being blocked/banned gives them no incentive not to sock. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      So banning is just a block with a different name?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose unban - the editor's behavior on other projects undermines the credibility of his promise to alter his behavior here. He does not appear to have grown up at all. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unban per Nathan Johnson and GiantSnowman.--v/r - TP 14:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unban I believe in second chances and Claritas seem to have done some good work earlier. Looking at the Commons thread linked to upthread I was actually more concerned by Volunteer Marek´s behaviour than Claritas´s as I thought Marek unnessecarily brought up previous sock issue. Claritas also answers well over at his talk page. w/r Iselilja (talk) 20:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support second chance. Editor has hopefully matured in the intervening time. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Worth a try. Easy enough to gauge his maturity in action - easier than it is here in discussion. Easy enough to get rid again if necessary. Peridon (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Having looked into the situation, I'm happy this user appears to have grown up a bit in the past two years. It's not difficult to re-block if they start playing up. Unfortunately, whilst I would be happy to mentor this user under different circumstances, I'm not in a position to take on more users at the moment. I would recommend a mentor, though I would believe that passive mentoring should be sufficient, watching their talk page and discussing issues with Claritas. WormTT(talk) 14:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Unban - Productive content creator. I offered to mentor earlier in an attempt to deter banning the editor in the first place. I'm still willing to do that if deemed essential, but I can't imagine that it is necessary. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose As I understand what's said, this person is just 15 or so. We have no deadline and so there will be plenty of time for them to contribute when they are an adult. Also, their user page indicates that they wanted Jack Merridew as a mentor and that's not a good sign. Warden (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – as Peridon says, it's easy enough to undo later if it turns out to be a bad idea. 28bytes (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support unban if user agrees to mentoring. AutomaticStrikeout 20:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Possible School Project

      At least, I think its a school project. If its not a school project, then something else very weird is going on. A hoard of SPAs have popped up to edit Interactive design, which was a redirect until yesterday. The results appear to be well intentioned, which is why I suspect a school project of some sort, but they are a bit rough around the edges. What is the WP page/project that tends to coordinate these things? I think that some hand-holding may be needed here, and wanted to know where to go to get some assistance. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      WP:SUP (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. I've reported this on the talk page there, to get someone knowledgeable in these things to try to figure out exactly what is going on here, and I suspect to try to establish a dialog with the teacher if it is a class project. In the mean time, at least one other WP regular has jumped into the article to give some clean-up assistance. (Thanks, TP!) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The one IP editor (69.41.96.11/nat-tbd.scad.edu), is an educational institution IP address registered to Savannah College of Art and Design. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a note for on forums for the future: the WP ambassador program is trying to promote the Education noticeboard as a central point for dealing with student editing issues. The Interior (Talk) 04:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello there! you are right this is a group project, we couldn't find a definition for Interactive Design so we proceeded to create a new entry. hopefully that doesn't violate any Wikipedia regulations, it's still a work in progress. --Interactivista (talk) 01:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Interactivista, could you please make sure everyone on the project reads the following?
      Actually, it's just the opposite. The only "problem" we have is that we here at Wikipedia want to help you and to be part of your project. Here are my suggestions:
      • Have each member of the project go to their user page and post a little about themselves. No personal info needed, just a little bit about the school and the project.
      • You have to talk about the project somewhere, so why not do it on the article talk page?
      Like I said, we love school projects, we want to help you and we want to work with you. That's hard to do when all we see are your edits and none of you engages in conversation with us. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Hey there. I just wanted to cross post this from the VP:MISC board, since most of our copyright experts on this project, or at least most of the ones I've dealt with, are either admins, or are active on this board. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Consider crossposting to Wikimedia-l? It may already be on there, I haven't been following my mailing lists too closely this week. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 14:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 scheduled to close

      The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election RFC, which will govern the conduct of the election, is eligible to begin closing any time on or after November 1, or about 9 hours from now. We could use a number of uninvolved closers to assess consensus, both for individual issues, and finally for the whole RFC. One closer need not close all the issues in the RFC. The earliest proposal has nominations starting on November 11th, so please consider closing the issues that will be germane to the schedule and nominations as promptly as possible. Monty845 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Second chance for dannyboy1209

      This doesn't belong here and won't help editor, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

      Should dannyboy1209 be given another chance to change his ways on wikipedia? 92.0.113.96 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • How about you ask for user talk page access back, per the instructions on your talk page? Submit a proper unblock request. Using IP socks to do this is not going to help. Reyk YO! 21:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Commons bug, not applicable for enwp

      Original section title: Please cease all deletions at this time

      Resolved
       – not affecting enwp Nobody Ent 11:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      {{adminhelp}}

      A bug has been discovered that is causing the histories of deleted files to disappear. At this time it is unknown what is causing the bug, what other projects the bug effects, or if the data can be recovered at a later point. Because of this, I advise that we cease all deletions for any reason (except for things that need to be Oversighted), and place a Sitenotice up warning admins to stop deleting pages at this time. I believe that the magnitude of possible damage warrants this level of response. The adminneeded tag is for the sitenotice. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Is this file namespace only? --Rschen7754 05:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sven, can you explain to me why missing file history is a problem worthy of a site notice and ceasing to delete files that violate US copyright law? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I have gone ahead and put in the notice, but any admin can feel free to revert if the problem is resolved or it is determined to not affect enwp. --Rschen7754 05:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Well, I'd more object that you've told any admin not to ever delete anything ever until told otherwise when it affects the file namespace, and that you've done so in a way that pings every single user ;p. I've emailed the internal engineering list essentially telling them we need this fixed doublequickfast. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Did my edit test, and this is file namespace only. --Rschen7754 05:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I was just informed by Engineering that this code is not live on enwiki. Sven, please be sure to verify things before making apocalyptic notices :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      All my tests work; just uploaded an image, deleted, restored, and everything's fine. It's only on Commons. Removed sitenotice. --Rschen7754 05:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks. Being that I'm not an admin on this project, I would have no way of testing it. Being that I can't code for shit, I would have no way of seeing if WP had the same issue or not. I was very clear above that I wasn't 100% on it being on English Wikipedia, when I said "At this time it is unknown what is causing the bug, what other projects the bug effects, or if the data can be recovered at a later point." I think that the response here was perfect: deletions were stopped until the situation could be tested, at which point the messenger was shot for time-wasting. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Absolutely. This is Wikipedia, where no good deed goes unpunished and anything you say will be used against you, sooner or later. Since Dmca#Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act provides WMF really good protection, concerns about copyright law for the short amount of time really are overwrought. Of course, had the bug been real and Sven had not said anything we could sit around this morning in 20/20 hindsight discussing his failings for not doing so. In any event, Sven didn't post the site notice, Rschen7754 did, we can throw them under the bus instead if a sacrificial victim is required. Sven, don't worry about it. Nobody Ent 13:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=520950424"