Ebrahimi-amir (talk | contribs) →{{user|Alborz Fallah}}: new section |
Ebrahimi-amir (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
== {{user|Alborz Fallah}} == |
== {{user|Alborz Fallah}} == |
||
{{user|Alborz Fallah}} attack me[[User talk:Ebrahimi-amir#Bir Daghaa sabr elion ... |here]]. He wrote "بیر آز فیکر ، بیر آز آناماق چوخ یاخشی شیی دیر" that means, I don't have any think |
{{user|Alborz Fallah}} attack me [[User talk:Ebrahimi-amir#Bir Daghaa sabr elion ... |here]]. He wrote "بیر آز فیکر ، بیر آز آناماق چوخ یاخشی شیی دیر" that means, I don't have any think and I do not sense. It's again [[WP:PA]] and [[WP:CIVIL]]. --[[User:Ebrahimi-amir|Ebrahimi-amir]] ([[User talk:Ebrahimi-amir|talk]]) 08:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:52, 25 May 2011
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
WikiGuide RfCs
Would an admin (or admins) close the following RfCs CSD criteria for new articles, being templated, and socialising on WP? Crossposted to WP:VPP. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure these RfC's should be "closed". I'm not saying they shouldn't, but I am raising the question. Not all RfC's are closed (I think) and not all RfC are necessarily looking for a GO/NOGO decision -- they are just that, requests for comments and conversation about a matter. In the case of Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing for instance, the proposal is
- "Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing on talk pages and possibly increase the visibility of Wikipedia's IRC channels."
- It's quite possible that this is designed to foment further discussion that might lead to specific proposals for specific changes. If a person were to close this RfC with a result of "accepted", how exactly would the person then implement "Wikipedia should allow some amount of non-article related socializing"? Changes to the WP:NOT page and other pages, writing a new policy, or what? Similarly, at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Minimize talk page templates, the proposal is
- "When dealing with new users, we should discourage excessive templating and encourage more personal messages."
- If a person were to close this RfC as "accepted", how would she then implement this? The proposal at Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts is more specific and perhaps is amenable to a close. If closed as "accepted", though, implementation would require some changes to Twinkle as well as text changes at policy/procedure. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think stuff like this needs more discussion, and if someone is going to close it, the close should mainly summarize the main points and arguments and not try to locate some consensus for something. –MuZemike 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Not every RFC asks for consensus; these seem more like organized discussions, and as such should be closed by summary and not by consensus. --Jayron32 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comments that the closes should be summaries of the above RfCs, rather than than implementations. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes a summing-up would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), for closing Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Change CSD to userspace drafts. Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Draft RfC:Minimize talk page templates and Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/Allow socializing remain open. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yes a summing-up would be welcome. Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the above comments that the closes should be summaries of the above RfCs, rather than than implementations. Cunard (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. Not every RFC asks for consensus; these seem more like organized discussions, and as such should be closed by summary and not by consensus. --Jayron32 20:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think stuff like this needs more discussion, and if someone is going to close it, the close should mainly summarize the main points and arguments and not try to locate some consensus for something. –MuZemike 20:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Per the request at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles#This RfC has officially "expired" -- could somebody please close it, would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles? Cunard (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- The bot runs on a 30-day timer, simply it's impossible for a bot to figure out whether a discussion is resolved. Most editors 'forget' to remove the RFC tag when the resolve the question, and if we don't automatically remove tags at some point, then they'll stay 'open' for years. Most RFCs are actually resolved within a much shorter time, so 30 days is usually enough. However, if any RFC discussion is still active after 30 days, then you simply change the timestamp in the RFC to let the bot know that we're still talking about it. There is no magic 30-day timer on discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- The page's history shows very little activity over the past week. Because over 30 days have passed, and because the discussion has become inactive, the RfC can be closed. A summary of the RfC will allow editors to know the level of support for the proposal. Cunard (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
RFC needs summary. It's a doozy...
Could an administrator who is previously uninvolved consider reading, summarizing, and closing Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles. Its a doozy, and one with potentially wide-reaching implications for Wikipedia, so it should probably fall to an experienced admin, especially one who is used to closing and summarizing long RFCs. This discussion has been open since April 3rd, so its going on 8 weeks or so, and has had endorsements or contributions from some 300+ editors. In the past 10 days, only 7 different people have added any endorsements or comments to it, so its probably reached the end of its natural life. If a daring soul could take the time to take this one on, that would be great. --Jayron32 06:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I asked Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) to take a look at the RfC. Cunard (talk) 06:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad will not be able to close it. Would another admin look at the RfC and gauge the consensus? Cunard (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I looked over portions of it and I should be able to close it, but it will take take several days to read though all the material -- in addition to the RFC page itself, there is a large talk page and there are multiple sub-pages. With other obligations, Friday night would be a reasonable estimate. If no one else is volunteering to do it sooner, I will tag it with
{{Closing}}
and note my estimate on the talk page, which will hopefully end this sort of pessimistic speculation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposed site ban for Avinash Patra
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This ban proposal gained unanimous support after being listed for more than 48 hours, waiting for more people to support doesn't seem necessary. I'm including Avinash Patra in our list of banned users. -- Atama頭 17:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose a community site ban on this persistent self-promoter who since January has posted articles about himself under 18 different variations of his name (Dr.Avinash Patra, Sr.Dr.Avinash Patra, Mr.Avinash Patra, Author.Avinash Patra, Sr.Abinash Patra I etc. etc.), using 25 socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Avinashkrishnadasa. You can get the flavour from his Facebook page and the original AfD. Today alone he has generated four new socks, and posted three articles about his (self-published on-line) books; a formal ban will make clear that any more of these can be deleted at sight. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support Mjroots (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Strong support I thought he'd be back, but not so soon. Another flavour is that it's not only here - I found him claiming to have an invitation to The Wedding on some Indian site that I can't remember. Totally non-notable, and fairly obviously thinks we're stupid. I missed those ones today - wasn't around at the right time. Mind you, if people really are buying 7 page books (download it and print it yourself) for £220, I think I might change to religious writing. At lest I can spel... Peridon (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support Enough was enough a long time ago. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposing block of Wicklypickle
This user (Wicklypickle) keeps reposting the article (I think.) and removing speedy tags of Andy harglesis. I think he/she should be blocked in Wikipedia. JohnHWiki talk - 08:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Requesting an uninvolved admin
Requesting an uninvolved admin to close a talk page proposal, at "Proposal to stub this article". Though the result of the consensus appears to be unanimous, it would be appreciated for an uninvolved admin to close it, so a neutral assessment of the overall consensus expressed may be given. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- Update: It appears that this has since been closed, by editor ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs), (see diff). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
reluctance to close AFDs
I've noticed a growing trend, not with any particular admin but more in general of reluctance to close AFDs. Either by letting a discussion go on beyond 7 days or adding a relisting note and letting it go even further. I recently posted a request on a nearly month old AFD for some action which has been relisted twice. Relisting makes a lot of sense when there is little participation but this particular AFD had !votes from 6 editors. Does the process admins follow need some attention, are admins in general pushing to get concensus, or is this just an avoidance of decision making and/or conflict? It's a difficult, usually thankless job to cull through all the !votes and comments and make a decision, but avoiding it usually doesn't make it any easier. When all else fails, sometimes the result needs to be "no concensus". No links or anything specific because I dont want to throw anyone under the bus, just give whatever admins take the time to read this some food for thought. --RadioFan (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- It might help a little if we agreed to treat AFDs relisted without any comments at all as successful PRODs (after all, they've gone a week without any opposition to deletion, whilst it wouldn't be right to close as a successful AFD, preventing recreation per WP:CSD#G4). So delete article as a PROD, close the AFD as a "successful PROD, no prejudice to recreation". Perhaps this just doesn't happen very often; the thought is prompted by this one just now. Rd232 talk 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- but sometimes the second or even the third week of discussion does produce a definitive solution. I think other people may be like me: I examine the ones of interest to me on the first round, but if nobody with greater concern or knowledge comments, I'll take a look at the others also. and if it's the third week, I'll go further afield yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ultimately, though, what happens with AFDs that really never get any comments? I don't work with AFD much, and I never close discussions because I don't understand the coding properly (the only time that I tried to close one, it closed the entire day's worth of discussions!), but treating uncontested AFDs as prods makes sense to me. We already follow a similar process with other types of deletion discussions, such as files. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's been discussed, and as far as I know, consensus has never been established to treat low-attendance AfDs as uncontested prods: see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's been discussed before... yes, and I opposed it! LOL. Rd232 talk 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The most recent discussion seems to be Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Relisting straw poll. T. Canens (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's been discussed before... yes, and I opposed it! LOL. Rd232 talk 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's been discussed, and as far as I know, consensus has never been established to treat low-attendance AfDs as uncontested prods: see, for example, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Archive 53#Proposal, treat AFDs with little or no discussion as "uncontested prods". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ultimately, though, what happens with AFDs that really never get any comments? I don't work with AFD much, and I never close discussions because I don't understand the coding properly (the only time that I tried to close one, it closed the entire day's worth of discussions!), but treating uncontested AFDs as prods makes sense to me. We already follow a similar process with other types of deletion discussions, such as files. Nyttend (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- but sometimes the second or even the third week of discussion does produce a definitive solution. I think other people may be like me: I examine the ones of interest to me on the first round, but if nobody with greater concern or knowledge comments, I'll take a look at the others also. and if it's the third week, I'll go further afield yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Need OTRS help
I deleted File:Therion confidential.jpg as a copyvio (it was marked as freely licensed, but it was obviously an album cover), but Joshua Issac has asked me to restore it because of OTRS ticket 1800191. I've declined, since I don't have OTRS access and thus can't read the permission email (the file description page never had anything about OTRS), so could someone with OTRS access review the ticket and restore the file if the ticket is sufficient? None of the people on the list at Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team have edited much in recent days, and I don't know whether OTRS people from Meta or from other projects are able to work with our tickets. Sorry if this is the wrong place (after all, we don't have an OTRS noticeboard), so if you know of a better place, please move it there and please let me know for future reference. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
HXL49 (talk · contribs) is waging a campaign to remove my comments from talk discussions. He removed my comments at WT:RM and my !votes at Talk:Taihu Lake. How am I ever going to get anyone to respond to my concerns if they're always deleted? He removed my tag at Navel lint, calling it "drive by tagging", when I left an explaination on the talk page, clearly not conducive to discussions. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Making a compare from a history list - "on a new browser tab or browser page" option would be useful
- When I have called for a long edit history list display, it takes up my time and Wikipedia's server's time to make the table, if it is long. When I then call for a compare of edits, the compare display overwrites the history display, and when afterwards I click the browser's left-arrow to go back to the history display, I must wait while Wikipedia's server remakes the history display. It would be useful if I could call the compare display to come on a new browser tab or on a new browser page. (I use Firefox.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs)
Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs) attack me here. He wrote "بیر آز فیکر ، بیر آز آناماق چوخ یاخشی شیی دیر" that means, I don't have any think and I do not sense. It's again WP:PA and WP:CIVIL. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)