Just Step Sideways (talk | contribs) →Block review: good block |
Unscintillating (talk | contribs) →Second chance for User:Claritas?: questions |
||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
*'''Support unban''' - as long as Claritas is willing to be mentored for a few months to get him back up to scratch. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Support unban''' - as long as Claritas is willing to be mentored for a few months to get him back up to scratch. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support'''- because Claritas has not socked in the last six months and has given credible assurances that he won't in future. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Support'''- because Claritas has not socked in the last six months and has given credible assurances that he won't in future. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
::Reyk, your contributions include [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Warpath_(Transformers)&action=history 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 [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 89#AfD nominations and de jure WP:Banning_Policy|"common sense"]] overrides the [[WP:BAN|"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, <i>even if the edits seem good.</i>"? 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|[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? [[User:Unscintillating|Unscintillating]] ([[User talk:Unscintillating|talk]]) 03:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Block review == |
== Block review == |
Revision as of 03:46, 30 October 2012
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 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 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
RFC on including DC Comics
(Initiated 154 days ago on 21 December 2023) Long past 'best before' date. - wolf 17:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 69 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. |
|
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 46 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)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 45 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 45 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 42 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:Tesla,_Inc.#Rfc_regarding_Tesla's_founders
(Initiated 36 days ago on 17 April 2024) Will an experienced uninvolved editor please assess consensus? There has been a request at DRN now that the RFC has completed activity, but what is needed is formal closure of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Done Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?
(Initiated 32 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails
(Initiated 29 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 20 | 32 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 17 | 22 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 46 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:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 17 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season
(Initiated 114 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AATalk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive
(Initiated 100 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 37 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)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles
(Initiated 22 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 20 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests
(Initiated 14 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk: Political controversies in the Eurovision Song Contest#Requested move 13 May 2024
(Initiated 10 days ago on 13 May 2024)
Move proposal on a contentious area which has been going more than long enough.
PicturePerfect666 (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relisted by editor BilledMammal on 21 May 2024. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
NOINDEX-ing of evidence page
Hi - I NOINDEX-ed User:Skyring/RFCU_evidence - this evidence page and the User:Skyring has removed it and asked for an explanation - I have explained but the user has as yet failed to replace the NOINDEX template to the evidence page - please can an Admin assist - thanks - Youreallycan 20:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at similar pages - at the RFCU archives here - I find that they do not include NOINDEX tags. In fact, I could only find one. This one. It doesn't seem to be the general procedure. --Pete (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there some reason you want your alleged evidence page republished by search engines? Youreallycan 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't given it any thought. I looked at the instructions for raising RFCUs and found no mention. I was asked by several editors here only a few days ago to launch an RFCU and I'm doing it. All of this material is freely available on diverse WP pages. I show it as evidence, because that's what it is. Everything is accurate and linked to the diffs. What impels you, specifically? --Pete (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- This one is also noindexed. Like everything else in Wikipedia, it helps if you know people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Is there some reason you want your alleged evidence page republished by search engines? Youreallycan 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- It should be noindexed. All RFC/Us are noindexed in MediaWiki:Robots.txt, so any evidence on them outside of the technical confines of Robots.txt should get the template. MBisanz talk 21:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The page should be noindexed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okey-doke! Thanks. Done --Pete (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. It's appreciated. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Okey-doke! Thanks. Done --Pete (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. The page should be noindexed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Meta discussion about NOINDEXING userspace and projectspace pages
(edit conflict) This page and all similar pages should be NOINDEXED. It may be time for the community to update its attention to which pages in Wikipedia space should be excluded from search engines. The answer, in my opinion, is a large number of them, the main exception being guideline and policy pages. And pages drafted in userspace but intended for Wikipedia space should follow the same presumption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Ah, thanks for that. YRC asked me, and I had no clue. Now I get why they aren't tagged since it is automatic, and why they need to be done manually if they are off venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- Without going into another round of something that needs a widespread discussion, it might be time to revisit moving userspace out of the eyes of the search engines; there is no good reason to be searching Google for a specific user on Wikipedia, and userpages which are verbatim copies of deleted articles should not be something that a search engine can pull up; many people don't understand Wikipedia conventions, and User:Example/(Insert name here) (deleted as non-notable, and a possible BLP violation, then userfied six months ago) looks pretty much the same as (Insert name here) to many non-editors. It's one of the reasons that my sandbox articles-in-progress always have cryptic names (usually an initialism), so that it's less likely that someone will pull up my work and think it's an actual article. Horologium (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- For some types of searches, Google is easier to get the results you are looking for than the internal search (at least for me). I can see why noindexing pages that look like articles is a good idea, but user pages are about the only shop window we allow editors and so I don't see a reason to block them. In the spirit of openness I think the principle should be that everything is indexable unless there is a reason it shouldn't be (and for evidence pages and articles-in-userspace there is a good reason). I don't know if it is technically possible, but my ideal would be that userpages (user:Thryduulf, including things transcluded onto it) would be indexed by default, while user subpages (user:Thryduulf/Conversion sandbox, even if transcluded onto another page) would be noindexed by default. A trackable {{index this page}} template or __INDEXTHISPAGE__ magic word overwrite the default noindex. I say trackable so as to make abuse (e.g. shoving it on a fake article) findable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I will pop in to quickly say (1) NOINDEX is a suggestion that some search engines follow and which others may ignore. (2) Over the years many sites have mirrored Wikipedia's content. They do this to get search engine traffic, and quite happily strip our NOINDEX instruction because they very much want to be indexed. NOINDEX is not a solution. If content shouldn't be visible because it might damage the reputations of editors who might be personally indentifiable, the pages should be blanked as a courtesy to the editors. NOINDEX is not sufficient. I am not aware of any sites that routinely mirror old versions of our pages.
- I oppose noindexing large swaths of Wikipedia. Our search function is inferior to Google's. I want to be able to use Google to find things.
- The best solution is to selectively blank pages that have the potential to cause real life problems for our volunteers. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I want to echo the comments of Jehochman. If I were Google, I would take the position that I am going to honor NO-index, as long as it is used sparingly, and appropriately. I see a good justification for NOINDEXing of user subpages, as those are often articles under development, yet might look like articles to the uninitiated, so could be misleading. More importantly, we don't want editors creating marginal articles in user subpages, and indexing them, so they get visibility, even though not meeting our standards.
In contrast, I see no justification for the NOINDEXing of user pages and user talk page. Cutting out a huge swath of material such as user pages is the type of thing that might cause Google to rethink its decision. Remember, their goal is to be the search engine for everything on the internet, and they are voluntarily agreeing to provide limits on that goal, let's not abuse it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)- User talk space is already NOINDEXed by default and I doubt Google (or any other search engine) noticed or cared. I don't see how extending it to user space would cause a problem. Jenks24 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt Google cares about user pages, and if they stopped respecting NOINDEX and we kicked up a fuss about it, it would cause a shitstorm for them in the real world, so they won't. By far the most important pages in dispute resolution are history pages (because of diffs), and those have been noindexed since the very beginning. Thrydulf, per WP:NOTHOST we should absolutely not be providing users with "shop windows". 67.119.3.105 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've no idea why all of userspace (not just user talk) isn't noindexed by default. It eliminates the entire point of vanity pages, for instance, as well as icky process stuff like this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- It does not take away the base problem, it is just hiding a symptom. Plain vanity, advertising, attack pages etc. should simply be removed, deleted, blanked, whatever. Whether they are in userspace, mainspace or talkspace - they occur everywhere. NOINDEX takes away the immediate threat (for that namespace), the work still needs to be done. As said above, google respects NOINDEX, other search engines maybe don't (and seen that useful information is available in userspace, search engines might want to be able to find it and selectively ignore noindex there). Also, Wikipedia mirrors may just disable the NOINDEX and there you go, the pages can still be found. Thé solution to search engines ignoring NOINDEX, people plainly linking to their userpage from outside ('look, we have a page on Wikipedia, it is here!'), or mirrors disabling NOINDEX before publishing the page is to make sure the info is simply not there anymore. I am for these reasons against adding NOINDEX, as it will make people leave the stuff ('it is noindex anyway'). The nofollow on the external links did not really stop the spam ... --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 13:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- It may not stop people adding spam, but it will stop it showing up on gsearch results, so it's beneficial if only for that. Pages are routinely deleted even if they have NOINDEX manually specified, so I'm not convinced it'll make the task of dunging out userspace at MfD any more difficult. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's less of a problem if it's on a a mirror site, because it doesn't get the high visibility created by Wikipedia's search rank (that's why spammers come here after all). Mirror sites are probably lower than internet forums in visibility. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I support much more noindexing, as external search presence gets in the way of open discussion and increases the perverse incentive for soapboxing. This is an encyclopedia, not a SaaS for SEO's. We should also have self-sufficient internal search functions just as we should be self-sufficient for content. If you've got some specific suggestions to improve our search code, or some example searches that Google does better than we do, please put them at VPT or Bugzilla. Also if we're talking about transparency, people with COI's related to the topic might want to mention them so we know where they're coming from, just saying. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
User:Skyring/RFCU evidence
Users are allowed to compile evidence pages. This one is allowable, because any negative assertion is supported by a diff. I expect the user will not leave this hanging too long. Once the research is done (expediently) an RFC/U should be filed, and then the page can be blanked. Jehochman Talk 13:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm missing something but did anyone here ever question the current existence of User:Skyring/RFCU? The issue of concern seems to solely relate to whether to noindex it and other pages. (In terms of the first issue, even if it currently isn't routinely done for evidence pages, it doesn't seem there is a good reason not to noindex it and there are good reasons to index it, as long as RFC/Us are also effectively noindexed.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
backlog at 3RR
There are a several cases of edit warring that have been pending review for quite a while. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'll take a look, but are the parties still edit warring? If they've stopped, then blocks may not be eminently necessary. Just something to keep in mind. Heels time all wounds, or something like that. --Jayron32 13:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done Backlog cleared. Turns out everyone needed a block, and I have issued those that needed them (there were 3 open reports, two needed blocks, and one had been blocked but the report never closed). I think we're up to date on that one, I see no more open reports. --Jayron32 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of open reports are never good; either action should be taken on the disputes in question, or the reports should be marked as stale. Thanks, Jayron, for resolving the situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would never call three "lots". There were three open reports. Now, the oldest was a few hours old when I closed it. But the page wasn't exactly backlogged. Yes, ideally action should be taken on open reports in a timely fashion. But if perchance an incident reported in such a report resolves itself without the need to block someone, that's a nice happy accident, and there's no need to block someone over a technical 3RR violation if the problem is working itself out according to best practices when the report is finally acted upon. So yeah, stale reports are bad, except when occasionally doing nothing ends up letting the parties involved in the dispute start to work out a solution the right way. In those cases, blocking a technical 3RR violation isn't productive. That's all I was saying. --Jayron32 03:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since you'd already taken care of it, and since I didn't have time to go through the page history when everything had already been resolved, I didn't know that there were three; how is just three a backlog? And I'm not urging that old reports result in blocks; rather, I'm urging that old reports be marked as stale. My intended point is that we're always better off when there are fewer open threads; much better to mark a stale thread as stale than to keep it sitting there waiting for someone who might levy an unhelpful block. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, regarding your lack of knowledge that there were only 3, you could have known that had you read the comment I made that you responded to. When I said "there were 3 open reports", what I had meant by that was "There were 3 open reports". Not sure how I could have made that plainer. And none was strictly "stale", the oldest was 23 hours old when I responded, but the behavior was a case of long-term edit warring (and likely sockpuppetry as the account had some precocious knowledge of Wikipedia) and so was actionable. The second was about 12 hours old when I reveiwed it, but the account had been blocked within an hour of the report, so it was just a bookkeeping error and not one of action. I merely made the note and closed the report. The third was 7 hours old. So yeah, the oldest was growing a bit old, and it was fine to ask here for someone to look it over. Which was done. --Jayron32 12:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Since you'd already taken care of it, and since I didn't have time to go through the page history when everything had already been resolved, I didn't know that there were three; how is just three a backlog? And I'm not urging that old reports result in blocks; rather, I'm urging that old reports be marked as stale. My intended point is that we're always better off when there are fewer open threads; much better to mark a stale thread as stale than to keep it sitting there waiting for someone who might levy an unhelpful block. Nyttend (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would never call three "lots". There were three open reports. Now, the oldest was a few hours old when I closed it. But the page wasn't exactly backlogged. Yes, ideally action should be taken on open reports in a timely fashion. But if perchance an incident reported in such a report resolves itself without the need to block someone, that's a nice happy accident, and there's no need to block someone over a technical 3RR violation if the problem is working itself out according to best practices when the report is finally acted upon. So yeah, stale reports are bad, except when occasionally doing nothing ends up letting the parties involved in the dispute start to work out a solution the right way. In those cases, blocking a technical 3RR violation isn't productive. That's all I was saying. --Jayron32 03:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Lots of open reports are never good; either action should be taken on the disputes in question, or the reports should be marked as stale. Thanks, Jayron, for resolving the situation. Nyttend (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Done Backlog cleared. Turns out everyone needed a block, and I have issued those that needed them (there were 3 open reports, two needed blocks, and one had been blocked but the report never closed). I think we're up to date on that one, I see no more open reports. --Jayron32 13:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit requests
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a tiny little backlog at Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Not an admin matter, but this is red. Anyway, it would be great if people with a minute to spare could take a look at those. Thanks, --81.173.237.215 (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Any longstanding editor is permitted to verify and potentially make those edits ... the category is monitored by many (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I did a few. It's down to 7 requests. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Me and my comeback
Hi all admins; all people. I don't know if all know me (well the ones who lived here early; knows me for sure.) I see Wikipedia has changed. I created a account year past year- with a hope to make collaborative edits- but the dream which I saw, was unfortunately not fulfilled. Wikipedia changed; is changing and will change. Thats a universal truth. It is very sad to observe how drastically Wikipedia had changed over the last few years. We are losing editors full of enthusiasm to edit. This is not to be blamed on the user- but on the community. Over the past months and years we have also lost a lot of admins- the very best ones; the very precious ones. No, don't catch me wrong. You may think I am speaking only for my comeback. I have a story, too. I had achieved a ton of awards; cupcakes; and barnstars of all sorts. My edit count maybe less, only 5,600+, but I don't care about it. What I am writing is a no-drama. It is straight from my mind- what I am feeling is what I am writing. Some people here, not all, are selfish. They are, they argue. You can segregate them out easily out of other Wikipedians. Once, long ago, I was proud to be a Wikipedian. Now, I amn't. This is so true. This is perhaps the biggest para I have written. And I had taken the serious step to decide to retire. But I didn't. Wikipedia is in my heart.
I even have old friends here. I don't know whether they still are active or not. I am concerned about Wikipedia's future. With this sentence I close my thoughts, only with a hope that the community remains civil and good- not what I experienced in my times. Thanking you, Dipankan001. @DipankanUpgraded! Tag me! 07:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason why this is posted on the administrator's noticeboard. Rants about your personal feelings regarding Wikipedia belong in your user space. Leaving for a week or two and then coming back is not something the general community needs to be informed of. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Has been beset by an SPA (User:Daveandaustin)sopecialising in this article and Romnesia, who was blocked for edit war thereon, and who now after his block resumes with such edits as [1]
I suggest he be talked to sternly. He is being notified. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Remove redlinked images from user archives
Minor issue. These two pages have redlinked images:
They are protected pages. I am trying to clear the backlog at Category:Articles with missing files. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wondering if it might make sense for the category to somehow not include talk pages. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference if a six-year-old user talk page archive has a redlink in it. If it is technically possible to automatically exclude talk pages so they don't show up in that backlog that seems like a good thing, but I don't have a clue how one would go about making that happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to be done already. The Mediawiki software bungs them in Category:Pages with missing files (except for those two rogues). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Out of scope user talk page
Out of scope user talk page User talk:Rejivamadevan, see also userpage, thanks--Musamies (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not really a WP:FAKEARTICLE ... is a bit of an WP:AUTOBIO/a bit MySpacey ... but it's non-promotional, and does meet many of the elements that are ok under WP:UP. Have you tried talking to them, or WP:MFD? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Reasonable extension, since he was again intentionally violating the I-ban. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- A comment like that, Tim, is a pretty good indication you should have your block button taken away. Volunteer Marek 23:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- He did NOT "declare he has no intent of abiding by the ban". Where you getting that from? Volunteer Marek 00:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Which is not at all the same as "declare he has no intent of abiding by the ban". Again, where did you get that from? Volunteer Marek 00:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- (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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (Non-administrator comment) Drmies makes a convincing argument that the block should be shortened to the original duration. In addition, the lengthened block does nothing more to prevent further disruption compared to the original one. wctaiwan (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy to wait until Fut. Perf's beauty sleep is a perfect preterite. Nothing will have been missed in the meantime, given the length of the first block. Sweet dreams everyone: Peyton Manning won again tonight, so all is still well with the world. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree with you, Doc. The block was ridiculous to begin with, and given that your fellow admin seems to be getting away with his unfair extension, this place is beginning to look more and more like a contemporary version of the Third Reich. DracoE 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- And... time. Is that a Godwin's Law record? Someone check the books! --Jayron32 03:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Checked; the ban discussion for Dr.Mukesh111 was faster, but only barely. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Cry Havoc!. John lilburne (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- And... time. Is that a Godwin's Law record? Someone check the books! --Jayron32 03:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree with you, Doc. The block was ridiculous to begin with, and given that your fellow admin seems to be getting away with his unfair extension, this place is beginning to look more and more like a contemporary version of the Third Reich. DracoE 03:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly happy to wait until Fut. Perf's beauty sleep is a perfect preterite. Nothing will have been missed in the meantime, given the length of the first block. Sweet dreams everyone: Peyton Manning won again tonight, so all is still well with the world. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Everyone, Drmies is politely asking us to back off and let him handle it. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Re:Project Backlog
Greetings Admins, There is currently a great big block of users at WP:PERM/RW that seem to not be getting processed. Could an Admin comfortable doing so please take a moment from their busy mopping elsewhere and get that going for some of the applicants? Thank you guys and gals, keep up the excellent work.
Cheers! T.I.M(Contact) 00:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Except for TruPepitoM, who's in the middle of a discussion, everyone's been granted rights or told that they shouldn't have them right now. Thanks to the people who worked on it, and thanks for letting us know, TIM. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Second chance for User:Claritas?
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)
- While of course wanting to AGF, given the user's history, can we please get a CU to confirm that they have not socked for 6 months? GiantSnowman 12:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- (After some research) Support unblock. Unless a checkuser can show evidence to the contrary, there seems to have been no socking in the last six months, and Caritas has made assurances that there will be no future incidents. I'm willing to accept that, on the (self-evident) proviso that any future infractions will result in an indef-block and a very low chance of an unblock being considered. I'd also recommend (but not require) that Claritas spends a few months editing under the auspices of a mentor of his choice, who can help diffuse any emotive disputes that might threaten to flare up in the future. Yunshui 雲水 12:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would recommend reviewing the following before responding:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637#Deletion of Transformers articles
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Claritas/Anthem of Joy
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Unban proposal on User:Claritas
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234#Ban appeal from User:Claritas - BOZ (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Agree with Elen - one of the concepts in the Standard Offer is to show work elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- No longer. The work somewhere else stuff was removed 7 months ago. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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.
- Agree with Elen - one of the concepts in the Standard Offer is to show work elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- Support unban. Wikipedia needs editors. Nobody Ent 17:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support unban - as long as Claritas is willing to be mentored for a few months to get him back up to scratch. GiantSnowman 17:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support- because Claritas has not socked in the last six months and has given credible assurances that he won't in future. Reyk YO! 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
Block review
Would another admin be kind enough to look over my recent block of IP 198.147.225.24? I've blocked the IP for a year due its use by User:Colton Cosmic, but I would have thought it should have been autoblocked - obviously I can't do that manually, so this seemed like the next best solution. It's a long block for an IP, but looking at the contribution history it seemed to be used so rarely as to make the length acceptabe. I'm also aware that linking a user to an IP address is frowned upon, but since he made his identity pretty clear I don't think I'm in violation of WP:OUTING. However, I would appreciate a second opinion... I'm going offline shortly, so if another admin disagrees with my actions please feel free to change or remove the block without waiting for a response from me first. Cheers, Yunshui 雲水 15:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Block looks fine, but shouldn't there be one of those you've been blocked here's how to post an unblock request things on the talk page? Nobody Ent 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC) <-- not an admin, and rarely kind
- I'd say a block for 6 months would be enough - that is what ArbCom specified ("After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.") GiantSnowman 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think the idea was they could edit IP after six months; it was "don't sock, and appeal after six months." Nobody Ent 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, but I don't see the point of any longer block, especially as the IP appears to be
staticdynamic. GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)- ? Isn't a static IP an argument for a longer (indef) block? If it was dynamic we'd want a short one, right? Nobody Ent 15:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- No, but I don't see the point of any longer block, especially as the IP appears to be
- I don't think the idea was they could edit IP after six months; it was "don't sock, and appeal after six months." Nobody Ent 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The IP assignment is static, but I'm going to put an
{{anonblock}}
template on its talk page in case it gets reassigned during the block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)- Re "linking a user to an IP address is frowned upon" — that's bad for checkusers (and perhaps OTRS people) to do. For the rest of us, who don't have access to non-public information, there's no problem with doing it, as long as you can back up your assertion — especially when the IP itself makes the connection, like here. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd say a block for 6 months would be enough - that is what ArbCom specified ("After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.") GiantSnowman 15:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- Good block, thanks for doing it. Colton's endless crybaby routine got old a long time ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Several of you admins. may want to put this on your watchlist. Not a problem at the moment (which is why I'm not at RFPP), but I suspect it could easily become one in the near future with respect to the Bengzahi attack. — ChedZILLA 21:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Reduced availability of Arbitrators and Functionaries due to Hurricane Sandy
All,
Just a quick note that a number of Arbitrators and Functionaries are either not available at all, or have limited availablity due to the impact of Hurricane Sandy; please bear with us. Of course, if you have any urgent matters please use the usual channels, but don't be afraid to ping one of us by e-mail or on IRC as needed.