→Opinions on ANI thread: new section |
|||
Line 202: | Line 202: | ||
Can you please let me create the page Ja⍰alif? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zasewteru|Zasewteru]] ([[User talk:Zasewteru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zasewteru|contribs]]) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Can you please let me create the page Ja⍰alif? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zasewteru|Zasewteru]] ([[User talk:Zasewteru|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zasewteru|contribs]]) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:Why? [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
:Why? [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 03:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
== Opinions on ANI thread == |
|||
Can we have some eyes on [[Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#MfD end run GAME]]? I did suggest a topic ban and any progress on the issue on sluggish and barely non-existent. Not to mention, it might just hit 36 hours too. Any opinions there are encouraged. --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|QEDK]] <small>([[User talk:QEDK|<span style="color:green">T</span>]] 📖 [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|<span style="color:red">C</span>]])</small></span> 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:14, 27 March 2016
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
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
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?
(Initiated 112 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 86 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE
(Initiated 67 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 60 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead
(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL
(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede
(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 8 | 17 | 5 | 30 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 15 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 20 | 3 | 24 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer
(Initiated 69 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 67 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe
(Initiated 64 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres
(Initiated 63 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.
(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge
(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 59 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists
(Initiated 57 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers
(Initiated 56 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons
(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee
(Initiated 46 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history
(Initiated 44 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon
(Initiated 44 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge
(Initiated 41 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 83 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 54 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Closure of RfC by uninvolved admin requested
The RfC I started to gather input about the inclusion of a hardcore pornographic movie in A Free Ride has been closed by User:Francis Schonken. Since this RfC deals with a contentious subject, and since Francis Schonken was involved in earlier discussions, I would like to request that the closure be undone and re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Francis Schonken declined to revert their closure when asked. I have no comment about the closure itself, I simply wish to avoid future argument by ensuring that this closure is procedurally solid. Note that there is an RfC about a similar situation on Debbie Does Dallas, so the question of consistency will undoubtedly be raised soon. Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't even looked at the close or at either article or talk page recently, but I strongly and completely agree that only an uninvolved admin should analyze and close these contentious debates. Softlavender (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also see User talk:Francis Schonken#Please undo your closure. The issue has been discussed to death and Right Hand Drive (talk · contribs) is still an SPA who is wasting community time. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- That may be so, and I do not agree with RHD's position on any of the issues involved (as witnessed by my !votes), but he is 100% correct in my view that only an uninvolved admin should be closing this and similar RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why an admin only? The involved I get of course. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's very contentious, and the RfC stands to affect dozens of Wikipedia articles by association. (Ideally, there should be a site-wide RfC on the subject of hosting full-length hardcore porn films on Wikipedia article space, but apparently to my knowledge no one has created such a sitewide RfC yet.) Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why an admin only? The involved I get of course. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- That may be so, and I do not agree with RHD's position on any of the issues involved (as witnessed by my !votes), but he is 100% correct in my view that only an uninvolved admin should be closing this and similar RfCs. Softlavender (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I concur.OVERTURN CLOSER WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE RFC! (per second expanded comment below) I find it baffling that User:Francis Schonken closed the RFC after participating in an (informal) debate about it elsewhere. Alsee (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Expanding my above comment. I'll acknowledge I was involved - however I'll note that the "no consensus" outcome is effectively in my favor. When people raise concerns with a close that's already in their favor it strongly indicates there's something wrong here. A reclose could potentially go the other way. The closer literally cited Their own prior debate of the issue as the basis for his close. They linked to their own arguments on Jimbo's talk page, which they made while the RFC was in progress. I also find it problematic that they failed to address the strong policy arguments raised by the majority side in the RFC. The close merely hand-waved that both sides were somehow equal. WP:Concensus Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. And WP:Close says to discard arguments: that flatly contradict established policy. If a minority is flatly contradicting policy then you can't hand-wave it as "equal". And if the minority weren't contradicting policy then the close should give at least some hint why the majority were wrong about it being a policy issue. (Ping BMK to note additional info.)Alsee (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Expanding comment: Francis Schonken was involved in the RFC! The close includes the strange statement "This includes the arguments regarding this article made at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 203#Debbie Does Dallas." The closer presented arguments in that discussion. The closer took the bizarre step of literally inserting their own !vote INSIDE the RFC at the same time they closed it. And one of the arguments they made in that discussion was that they wanted to "refocus" the debate OFF of policy examination. Policy Consensus says a closing MUST be viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. So they were involved, and they failed to address the policy arguments at all. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the terms of the close are accurate, properly describe and evaluate the discussion, correctly apply Wikipedia policy, and the closer was uninvolved in the RfC, it makes no difference whatsoever if the closer is an admin or not. It seems to me that this complaint is not at all motivated by it being a non-admin closure, but by the OP disagreeing with the close, and if an admin had made exactly the same close as Francis Schonken did, the OP would be here complaining about the close for some other reason altogether. Unless the OP can show that Schonken's close was inaccurate, improper, wrongly applied policy, or that Schonken was "involved", then they have no legitimate beef here. BMK (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you may be confused. I have stated why I believe Francis Schonken shoudl be considered involved. I have also stated that I am strictly commenting here on a procedural aspect of the closure. I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is. For the record, I did not vote in the RfC. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, let's clear up some of that supposed "confusion". Do you agree with the results of the close or not? BMK (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which part of "I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is" are you having trouble understanding? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- The part where you refuse to say why you started the RfC and what outcome your desired. We all are supposed to accept the outcome of properly-worded and properly-closed RfCs, so saying that you'll accept it is meaningless. You clearly started it with a desired outcome in mind, and your refusal to say what that was only underlines what I said above.There was nothing wrong with the close, an admin is not required, FS was not involved in the RfC, that should end the discussion. BMK (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, Francis Schonken was involved in the RFC! See above. Alsee (talk) 06:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see the problem now. You want me to answer questions that you haven't asked instead of the question that you have asked. It really doesn't matter, since your only purpose in posing questions is to assert completely false things like that I "refuse" to say what my desired outcome was. My desired outcome was to gather input from other editors on whether or not there should continue to be a hardcore pornographic movie embedded in A Free Ride, which has been embedded in that article since 2012. I started that RfC because the article came up in discussions about Debbie Does Dallas. That article had an embedded movie for several months (I was not the editor who originally embedded it, but I restored that embedding) until it suddenly became a point of contention. There were many arguments put forward which were not based on policy or rebuffed the current practice of embedding public domain films in their articles. So I have embarked on a journey of discovery. It will be hard for you to understand this, but I am using the available Wikipedia mechanisms to solicit input from other editors to determine what the community thinks we should do in cases like this. I believe some people call this "collaboration". This contentious issue will probably (definitely) come up again in the future, so it would be sensible to make sure that it is handled properly now. Francis Schonken should not have closed the RfC because they were involved in the issue. Now please stop being rude and obstructive. Right Hand Drive (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- The part where you refuse to say why you started the RfC and what outcome your desired. We all are supposed to accept the outcome of properly-worded and properly-closed RfCs, so saying that you'll accept it is meaningless. You clearly started it with a desired outcome in mind, and your refusal to say what that was only underlines what I said above.There was nothing wrong with the close, an admin is not required, FS was not involved in the RfC, that should end the discussion. BMK (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which part of "I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is" are you having trouble understanding? Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, let's clear up some of that supposed "confusion". Do you agree with the results of the close or not? BMK (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you may be confused. I have stated why I believe Francis Schonken shoudl be considered involved. I have also stated that I am strictly commenting here on a procedural aspect of the closure. I will accept the outcome of this RfC whatever it is. For the record, I did not vote in the RfC. Right Hand Drive (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Just clarifying something: Whereas a contentious AfD should only be closed by an admin, a contentious RfC has no such explicit requirement per this RfC from a couple years ago, and linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Any close can be contested, but that a non-admin did it can't be the sole reason. So the non-admin part is just kind of a distraction in this thread. That said, RHD has been pretty clear from the start that he/she objects to Francis's previous involvement with this issue, even if the non-admin part confused things. I don't think this fishing expedition of trying to get RHD to say what his goals really are or speculating as to what his actions would be if someone else closed has much of a point -- RHD is more or less an SPA and not a neutral party, but other people have raised the same objection. That Francis didn't participate in that RfC doesn't mean he wasn't involved. He took part in the discussion on Jimbo's talk page and the discussion at VPP, both of which took place just before this RfC and concerned the same basic question. Personally, I think this RfC was wrong-headed from the start but it did draw decent participation so merits a sound closure from an uninvolved party. (disclosure: I participated in the discussion, too) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously, I do not regard RHD's preference for a closing result as being ireelevant. In fact, I think it's highly relevant, and that RHD's refusal to say what close they preferred is simply a tactic, knowing that if they said they preferred X, and FS closed it as Y, it would cast a bad light on RHD's attempt to revert the close. I'm not buying the tactic. RHD's refusal to say why they started the RfC and what close they preferred isn't a "fishing expedition", it's an attempt to determine RHD's motivation in bringing this to the noticeboard. In the light of RHD's repeated refusal to comply with what is a very simple and natural question, I have no choice but to see the attempt to overturn the close as RHD trying to get what they want by foul means.As for FS's involvement, participation in a different discussion in a different place about a different film may bring them to the borderline of involvement, but as long as the evaluation of the RfC in the close is accurate, and the application of policy is correct, it really makes no difference. Remember, even with admins, if an involved admin takes an action which, it is agreed, any other reasonable admin would have taken, the admin's involvement is deemed to be irrelevant. I can't see why it should be any different for a rank-and-file editor.In short, any application for overturning the close should be made on the basis that FS did not correctly evaluate the RfC or applied policy incorrectly. Both the admin/non-admin and "involvement" arguments are red herrings and should be rejected, especially in the light of what appears to be RHD's machinations to get a preferred close. BMK (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I left you a lengthy explanation above of what I was trying to get out of this RfC, but you have again falsely stated that I "refuse" (now "repeated refusal") to answer your question. You have your answer already. If it wasn't clear, let me say it again. I want to have a result that is not likely to be challenged in the future when this issue comes up again. I will accept any result, but as far as I am concerned, the RfC has not been properly closed. I do not know if an uninvolved admin will share Francis Schonken's opinion on the RfC or have a different opinion, so asking for this closure to be overturned can hardly be called "machinations to get a preferred close" (or maybe I'm just a complusive machinator). So far, User:Softlavender, User:Alsee, and User:Rhododentrites have expressed agreement that the RfC should be re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Are you willing to go along with that consensus? Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Simple question, doesn't require a wall of text, or wikilawyering of any kind: what close did you want from the RfC, oppose or support? BMK (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have an opinion about how I think the question should be resolved, but I quite deliberately did not participate in the RfC because I wanted to gather input from other editors, not argue for my own views. So long as I am willing to accept what result, it really makes no difference what result I would have preferred. I'm really quite puzzled by your insistence that I have some secret agenda. I didn't vote. I'm not advocating a particular closure. If I have some secret agenda, I'm not doing a very good job of pushing it, am I? Now please stop badgering me. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- So, I'm left with no choice but to reiterate that this request for re-closing is simply an attempt by RHD to get the result he or she wants, which I have to assume is not the current result of the close. There's been absolutely no criticism of the terms of the close itself, the admin/no admin and involvement questions are non-issues, so, no re-close is necessary; but perhaps RHD should be warned for WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. BMK (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, IDHT? There has been criticism of the close. The closer admitted they copy&pasted their own !vote into the RFC, the !vote they copy&pasted into the RFC was that the close should not be made based on policy, they proceeded to disregard the policy arguments, and they failed to discard those that flatly contradict established policy. The closer was directly involved, and they failed to apply policy. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is criticism of the closer, not of the close itself, especially since you don't mean "established policy" you mean prevously established editing norms and guidelines, since there was no policy involved. Since norms and guidelines are not mandatory, there was no requirement for the closer to ignore those people who disagreed with them. Only policy is mandatory, and only comments which advocate violating policy should be thrown out. If this was not the case, there would be no way for editing norms to evolve or change. BMK (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK policy was involved, and several people were advocating flat out violation of policy. As was noted in the RFC, anyone who dislikes policy and wants it changed needs to present those arguments on the policy page. Alsee (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- If someone goes to David_(Michelangelo) and says the lead image should be removed and the sole argument they present is Wikipedia is not a porn site and should not be hosting porn, then under policy that rationale is invalid and should be discarded. Alsee (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- That is criticism of the closer, not of the close itself, especially since you don't mean "established policy" you mean prevously established editing norms and guidelines, since there was no policy involved. Since norms and guidelines are not mandatory, there was no requirement for the closer to ignore those people who disagreed with them. Only policy is mandatory, and only comments which advocate violating policy should be thrown out. If this was not the case, there would be no way for editing norms to evolve or change. BMK (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm left with no choice but to wonder how far one can shove one's head up one's own ass, but I begin to suspect that there is no limit for some people. Right Hand Drive (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- BMK, IDHT? There has been criticism of the close. The closer admitted they copy&pasted their own !vote into the RFC, the !vote they copy&pasted into the RFC was that the close should not be made based on policy, they proceeded to disregard the policy arguments, and they failed to discard those that flatly contradict established policy. The closer was directly involved, and they failed to apply policy. Alsee (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- So, I'm left with no choice but to reiterate that this request for re-closing is simply an attempt by RHD to get the result he or she wants, which I have to assume is not the current result of the close. There's been absolutely no criticism of the terms of the close itself, the admin/no admin and involvement questions are non-issues, so, no re-close is necessary; but perhaps RHD should be warned for WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM. BMK (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have an opinion about how I think the question should be resolved, but I quite deliberately did not participate in the RfC because I wanted to gather input from other editors, not argue for my own views. So long as I am willing to accept what result, it really makes no difference what result I would have preferred. I'm really quite puzzled by your insistence that I have some secret agenda. I didn't vote. I'm not advocating a particular closure. If I have some secret agenda, I'm not doing a very good job of pushing it, am I? Now please stop badgering me. Right Hand Drive (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Simple question, doesn't require a wall of text, or wikilawyering of any kind: what close did you want from the RfC, oppose or support? BMK (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I left you a lengthy explanation above of what I was trying to get out of this RfC, but you have again falsely stated that I "refuse" (now "repeated refusal") to answer your question. You have your answer already. If it wasn't clear, let me say it again. I want to have a result that is not likely to be challenged in the future when this issue comes up again. I will accept any result, but as far as I am concerned, the RfC has not been properly closed. I do not know if an uninvolved admin will share Francis Schonken's opinion on the RfC or have a different opinion, so asking for this closure to be overturned can hardly be called "machinations to get a preferred close" (or maybe I'm just a complusive machinator). So far, User:Softlavender, User:Alsee, and User:Rhododentrites have expressed agreement that the RfC should be re-closed by an uninvolved admin. Are you willing to go along with that consensus? Right Hand Drive (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Debbie Does Dallas RfC needs closing
Despite four editors from different "sides" of this issue agreeing that Francis Schonken's closure should be overturned, no one seems willing to brave the muck that assorting monkeys are throwing. The good news is that the RfC on including a hardcore pornographic movie in debbie Does Dallas has now finished and needs closing. I tried to suggest that particular RfC be postponed until the A Free Ride issue was settled, but my efforts were met with rudeness, name-calling, and harassment. I would advise anyone thinking of closing the Debbie Does Dallas RfC to take a moment to understand how embedding works and to review earlier discussions (about WP:NOTREPOSITORY for one). Good luck! Right Hand Drive (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
CLOSER HAS BEEN BLOCKED
I went to the closer's talk page to see if he would reconsider his close based on new information, but I found the closer has been blocked.[1]
Three of the people in the RFC presented arguments based on NOTREPOSITORY, however this policy RFC firmly established that those arguments as invalid. That very likely changes the outcome. As the closer is now blocked and obviously can't address this issue (in addition to the issues cited above), can someone put a close on this discussion authorizing a new closer? (Preferably an admin.) Alsee (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The closer was blocked on March 21. This request was filed on March 11. That gave the closer 10 days to decide to undo the close, which the closer clearly did not choose to do, as they were editing Wikipedia the entire time. [2]. That the closer is now blocked is therefore irrelevant. You have your answer: the closer does not wish to undo the close. It will take an admin deciding that the close was improper, and if you haven't gotten that is 11 days, you're unlikely to get it now. I suggest that this thread be closed and archived. BMK (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Request for range block
Hi, User:Sir gidabout has been indef blocked since January 2016 for persistently using sockpuppet accounts and IP addresses. He was blocked originally for adding unsourced statistics to association football articles, which he continues to do with his socks. Since today, he has been editing using different IP addresses for each edit. I can not see a resolution to this without the implementation of a range block. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sir gidabout for all of his accounts and IPs that have been blocked. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd like to second this request. When the original problematic editor was blocked, they appeared (assuming good faith) to be genuinely failing to understand the need to source their edits properly. The current incarnation can, and sometimes does, source and format their edits perfectly, but then adds unsourced content to or reverts to an unsourced version of the next article they edit. The disruption is getting extremely tiresome, particularly now the troll has discovered a supply of easily changed IP addresses. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Addition: Just made this thread not realizing there was one already open about the same matter I believe, take a look, thanks.
After looking at WP:RANGE, I believe a range block is required. The matter is that different IPs every week are making additions to dozens of Inter Milan football players' stats sections by updating their appearances for example, however without updating the |club-update=~~~~~
(time stamp). This has been an ongoing issue since the beginning of February, and despite warnings about updating the time stamp when updating stats, it falls on deaf ears as the IPs change slightly every week when a new game is played. The task that would be required to go around to virtually the entire squad and manually revert these changes would be much too time consuming.
It can be seen most recently by for example on Éder's page as well as many others by taking a look at this IPs contributions. Some IPs include 79.126.201.11, 79.126.140.210, 85.30.82.199, 79.126.245.167, 79.126.252.64, 185.5.4.37, 79.126.199.12, 79.126.220.78, 79.126.220.196
I am not very familiar how to IPs, etc. work and was hoping someone could help me put a stop to these disruptive ranges of IPs. Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Vaselineeeeeeee: Would it be easier to just semi-protect these articles? If there are only one or two that they are hitting that would probably be better. The IPs you listed above are contained in quite a large range, so a range block would probably have a lot of collateral damage to it or be impossible as there are restrictions as to how large of a range can be blocked. --Majora (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Majora: If it were one or two articles, it would be, however, it is virtually the whole playing squad they are hitting
Here is the list of what one of the IPs edit histroy would look like:
Felipe Melo (current) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Jonathan Biabiany (current) 21:54, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Éder (Italian footballer) (current) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Rey Manaj (current) 21:52, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Adem Ljajić 21:51, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Marcelo Brozović (current) 21:50, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Gary Medel 21:48, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Yuto Nagatomo (current) 21:47, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Jeison Murillo (→Club) 21:45, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Miranda (footballer) (→Club) (current) 21:45, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Miranda (footballer) 21:44, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Danilo D'Ambrosio (current) 21:43, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Samir Handanović 21:03, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Ivan Perišić (→Career statistics) 21:01, 19 March 2016 (diff | hist) . . (0) . . Ivan Perišić
Notice, it's more than one... I don't know what the best situation would be since there are quite a few players, and you say the range of IPs is rather large; however this is a problem that must be attended to somehow since this is ongoing and can cause lots of confusion between editors who update stats. Whatever the best option is to remedy this, I will be open to. Thanks. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was working on the second part of this when the two sections were combined. We're looking at two different ISPs, geolocating to different parts of Europe. I did block 79.126.128.0/17 for a month - 131 edits from that range since the middle of February and I counted fewer than ten that weren't disruptive, so I don't think there will be much collateral damage there despite the size of the range. The two outliers are stale, so until/unless they begin to edit somewhere else I can't do anything about them. On the fence about the first part of this report still. Katietalk 20:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of accounts using 79.126.128.0/17, just like most mobile ranges. I'd recommend blocking smaller ranges which are centred around the abuse if possible, or at the very least allow account creation from the blocked range. There is going to be an incredible amount of collateral damage blocking any mobile range, since more and more people are editing from those these days, but it's probably best to minimize the collateral as much as possible. There's always ClueBot and however many people sitting on Huggle to deal with what slips through the cracks. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is the smallest range that gets the abuse stopped. I fiddled with it for 30 minutes trying to cut it down and I couldn't. I checked the /18 range and we catch too many of the good edits while losing the disruptive ones. Again, in the last 33 days, there have been 131 edits from the /17 range out of a possible 32K IP addresses, and about 8% weren't from this vandal. I thought I made a clear case that the risk to innocent editors was small, but just in case, I went back further - since January 1 there have been a sum total of 321 edits from IPs in that range. 31 have been productive edits, so 90% of edits from that range are disruptive since the beginning of 2016. If another admin disagrees with me that this block is too big or too long in duration, or that the collateral damage is too great, go ahead and unblock or reconfigure it. Suggestions are welcome. Katietalk 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the smallest it will go, then that's fine of course. As best I can see, most of the accounts being created from that range are making good contributions - would you be willing to remove the restriction on account creation that you placed on the block? Also, I'd like to point out that I have no problems with your actions, but just wanted to add my own bit of useless thought on how to keep the most number of people editing from this range as possible :) Ajraddatz (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's cool. It's a soft block (anon only) so registered editors are unaffected. :-) Katietalk 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, but you have account creation disabled so nobody can make an account without going through ACC if they want to edit from the range. Of course, the guy who is doing the vandalism could too. Up to you of course, and it's probably fine as-is because they can go through ACC. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's cool. It's a soft block (anon only) so registered editors are unaffected. :-) Katietalk 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the smallest it will go, then that's fine of course. As best I can see, most of the accounts being created from that range are making good contributions - would you be willing to remove the restriction on account creation that you placed on the block? Also, I'd like to point out that I have no problems with your actions, but just wanted to add my own bit of useless thought on how to keep the most number of people editing from this range as possible :) Ajraddatz (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is the smallest range that gets the abuse stopped. I fiddled with it for 30 minutes trying to cut it down and I couldn't. I checked the /18 range and we catch too many of the good edits while losing the disruptive ones. Again, in the last 33 days, there have been 131 edits from the /17 range out of a possible 32K IP addresses, and about 8% weren't from this vandal. I thought I made a clear case that the risk to innocent editors was small, but just in case, I went back further - since January 1 there have been a sum total of 321 edits from IPs in that range. 31 have been productive edits, so 90% of edits from that range are disruptive since the beginning of 2016. If another admin disagrees with me that this block is too big or too long in duration, or that the collateral damage is too great, go ahead and unblock or reconfigure it. Suggestions are welcome. Katietalk 00:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are hundreds of accounts using 79.126.128.0/17, just like most mobile ranges. I'd recommend blocking smaller ranges which are centred around the abuse if possible, or at the very least allow account creation from the blocked range. There is going to be an incredible amount of collateral damage blocking any mobile range, since more and more people are editing from those these days, but it's probably best to minimize the collateral as much as possible. There's always ClueBot and however many people sitting on Huggle to deal with what slips through the cracks. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Revdel requested
Please can you revdel this as pure vandalism? Joseph2302 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it this was an egregious personal attack, rather than "pure vandalism". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
- It wasn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't a personal attack, but it was "pure vandalism" that rose to a level of disruptiveness that meets RD3 in my opinion -- basically replacing the entire page's content with hundreds of signatures a bold text. When the bite-size alone is enough to crash browsers, protecting unsuspecting users behind a RevDel isn't very controversial. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I take it this was an egregious personal attack, rather than "pure vandalism". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC).
Backlog at MfD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Good Tuesday admins! Cordially inviting you to spare a moment for WP:MFD, where a backlog of 21 threads open under "old business" going back as far as January 26 are waiting for fairly simple but admin-necessary closes. Please take a look. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Backlog at WP:UAA
Just wanted to give you fine admins a heads up on the backlog of usernames listed at WP:UAA. Looks liek some request go back to the 14th, and there's quite a few on the page currently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
ip closes
Have we ever had any discussion about whether an ip can close anXfD? DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I remember one from 2015. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive268#AfD closures by IP users seems to be the one I'm thinking of. The result was a change to WP:XFD to explicitly state IP editors are barred from closing deletion discussions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
My possibly flawed reasoning
Could someone please check my reasoning here:
Many thanks,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can not fully agree with you. For example, User:Barack Obama (we used to have such user, but they were forcibly renamed because of the SUL issues, but we still have User:Barack Obama is Satan!) was a clear impersonation of a famous person just because of the username, even if they never edited Obama-related articles and never claimed any relation to Obama. In fact, if Barack Obama themself wanted to edit Wikipedia under his own username, we would likely require an OTRS permission. I am not sure whether Michael Cane and Pankaj Choudhary raise to a comparable level of fame, but the requirement to rename the user might be an overrreaction (and as such it is debatable, I guess there might be tons of Michaels Cains walking around), but I would certainly not reject it outright.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say that "Michael Caine" is a common enough name that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's an impersonator, unless they're editing pages related to Michael Caine the actor. That doesn't mean there's not necessarily other problems with that account. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
- Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Request for edit filter manager permission
Hello admins, please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Request_for_edit_filter_manager_permission for an active request for a non-admin access to this tool. Please comment on the EFN to keep the discussion in one place. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Shawn Loiseau IP range vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several IPs with the same first 7 digits are vandalizing Shawn Loiseau. I thing we need a range block on them. CLCStudent (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those same IP addresses are now attacking User:E0steven. CLCStudent (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
blp snow afd
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If someone with the mop could drop in on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ted_Cruz_extramarital_affairs_allegation after a few hours/day it appears to be heading for WP:SNOW delete, with the only keep !vote coming from the creator. As it is a BLP concern, letting it ride out the normal 7 days seems like a mistake. Its borderline G10. (I actually nominated it for g10, but self reverted because I didn't want to blank the page as part of it) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The AfD should be allowed to run the full seven days, rather than just a few hours. There's a pretty good likelihood that the subject will receive considerably more coverage in the next few days. I also note that the article's author has been blocked for edit warring, so he cannot comment on this WP:SNOW proposal, which is a little unfair.- MrX 00:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- This being an ordinary example of something that hasn't had a chance to get secondary-source coverage yet, there's no way it should be retained, regardless of how many primary sources get created in the next few days. A snow delete would be entirely reasonable — but at least let's wait a few days. SNOW shouldn't be applied to an AFD less than one day after its creation; I can see the first day of AFD resulting in an IAR speedy deletion if people are all arguing for it, but as only a few people are calling for speedy deletion on any grounds, I don't think we ought to speedy it at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- My reasoning was a combination of gauging the consensus, as well as the article being a coatrack for blp gossip (the sources are weak, and most of the sources aren't actually about the affair, they are about the bickering about who is responsible for the leaks/story being run) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- This being an ordinary example of something that hasn't had a chance to get secondary-source coverage yet, there's no way it should be retained, regardless of how many primary sources get created in the next few days. A snow delete would be entirely reasonable — but at least let's wait a few days. SNOW shouldn't be applied to an AFD less than one day after its creation; I can see the first day of AFD resulting in an IAR speedy deletion if people are all arguing for it, but as only a few people are calling for speedy deletion on any grounds, I don't think we ought to speedy it at the moment. Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nyttend, I'm sorry, but I disagree and I closed it. Sheesh, it's like I'm the defender of Cruz here recently. First, SNOW applies and I don't see why we should wait a whole day. That the creator is blocked is one thing; that they can't comment on this is not unfair--after tall, this is AN. Administrators' noticeboard. Finally, I got some serious BLP concerns here, and our even having this article is contributing to the BLP-violating mill called the current election. If the subject gets more coverage other than being fodder for the talk shows and the twitter feeds, then we can always recreate it. Like, next year. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- We disagree on the procedural question, but we agree on the bigger keep-or-delete question. As I noted, secondary sources can't possibly exist, because this is still an ongoing event: that's why we need to wait until next year or more, as you said, to judge whether secondary sources covering this incident are ever created. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sure thing, Nyttend--thanks. In the end, I went and asked the first admin I saw on Recent changes and asked them; C.Fred deleted the article and I thank them for their service. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The article I deleted with BLP issues was not related to Cruz; it was a separate subject where WP:BLP1E and considerations about individuals charged with crimes but not convicted were at play. Further, I did not delete it under the snowball clause; I deleted it under CSD A7. —C.Fred (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
A post-review would be good
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
--QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose dragging that thread out any longer. Exactly the wrong direction the (now reopened) discussion needs. Let's keep this on one noticeboard for now, and then relocate the overall discussion to someplace where we can work on policy rather than trying to use sanctions to end the dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Social work
The talk page of Social Work has codified anonymous editors IP's as all the same editor and in talk page history cited as rogue. I have two edits in it - but I find choosing to add continuously any IP's for personal pleasure of sorts goes within the boundaries of Wikipedia:Harassment and Bullying/Bite.(Do wikipedia have an Anti-bullying policy) Any edits that made are reverted or disrupted using policies. Further more there also seem to be a matter of ego or something else going over materials which have clear and genuine citation. Page protections are used extensively to avoid discussions or making any changes. I am at my wits end how to respond to these when it comes to Ego and Content Contribution. I am of the opinion both these shouldn't gel together.117.215.192.154 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, the reality is Wikipedia is full of rules and rules, and if you edit a higher profile article you'll be expected to figure 'em out or listen when the regulars try to explain them. My suggestions would be to find other articles to start with -- there are oodles in which somebody thought it would be a good idea to slap a this is wrong but I'm too lazy to fix it tag on top, and ask for help at teahouse, where the friendlier Wikipedia folk help out. NE Ent 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
req?
Hi, pls @admin/s put texts Araz (musical group) in User:Samak/Araz.--SaməkTalk 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Ja⍰alif
Can you please let me create the page Ja⍰alif? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasewteru (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Opinions on ANI thread
Can we have some eyes on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#MfD end run GAME? I did suggest a topic ban and any progress on the issue on sluggish and barely non-existent. Not to mention, it might just hit 36 hours too. Any opinions there are encouraged. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)