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
|
Request for admin to close a merger discussion
May I ask for an admin to take a look at the Akita Inu Discussion page for the merger proposal between Akita Inu and American Akita and decide if a closure is due. It would be great to be able to get back to work on the article. Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was referred here from a help request on my user talk page. If this is the wrong place or wrong way to flag for an admin to look at closing a merger discussion could someone please say so, either here or my talk page? (and preferably tell me the right place to flag for it) Cheers, Keetanii (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is a cromulent place to request an admin close a discussion. Convenience link: Talk:Akita Inu#Merger proposal: July 2011. –xenotalk 18:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Request to close a guideline proposal
Could an admin please review the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian and close it? A fair warning—there is a lot of reading involved, but hopefully I was able to summarize the discussion in the Motion to close section (apart from a few minor points, the proposal has support, and the last comments of any substance were made in the beginning of July). Thanks in advance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)
- P.S. Please note that a part of the discussion has now been archived by the bot but should still be considered during closure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 13:31 (UTC)
Ezhiki (talk · contribs), would you restore that part of the discussion that was archived by the bot? Then remove that discussion from the archives. Please also combine the related sections (including the archived section and the motion to close section) and provide a direct link to it. This will allow admins to clearly see which discussion should be closed. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's an excellent suggestion; thanks. I've unarchived the relevant portions of the discussion and placed them under one header. The link to the portion that needs to be reviewed and closed is Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)
Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.
Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Comment needed: What should we do about processes (such as XfD) created in violation of banning/blocking policy, but had at least a handful of other valid supporting views of nom? has received substantial input and was listed on Template:Centralized discussion. Would an admin close and summarize the consensus in the debate so that editors will know how XfDs created by banned or blocked editors should be treated? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Richard Winsor
I need an admin to tell me if the newly created Richard Winsor is likely the same subject as the previously G12 CSDed one. If so a T:AH entry needs to be put on the talk page to properly represent the WP history of this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd say they are about the same person, they both link to the same IMDB locator page (which is a broken link, by the way?). But do we really need to document speedies in article history when there was no restoration or overturning of the speedy? Courcelles 06:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take care of the T:AH. I note speedies just for the record when I remember to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused — why do we need to document this? Not a criticism; I'm simply asking for help to understand the process. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the article history template there. It gives no useful information whatsoever and only helps to clutter the talk page. The speedy had nothing to do with the current article (same subject, but the reason for the speedy was not relevant for the current one). Adding templates to talk pages which are of no use to later readers or editors should be discouraged. Fram (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused — why do we need to document this? Not a criticism; I'm simply asking for help to understand the process. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take care of the T:AH. I note speedies just for the record when I remember to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Sean Peyton Ross
Moved to WP:ANI. Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
the transfer and merger history
transfer and merger history of Khormuj to Khvormuj please. -- Hamedvahid (talk) 10:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Although the two articles do appear to be on the same topic, they should not be history merged. The two articles are not the result of a cut-and-paste move, but have unique and parallel histories. See WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions for why articles with parallel histories should not be history merged. Instead, if there is anything of value in the Khormuj article, then the articles should be text merged (see WP:MERGE for how to provide attribution if you do so). If there is nothing of value in the Khormuj (seeing as there are no references, doesn't look like there's anything mergeable to me), then simply replace that article with #REDIRECT [[Khvormuj]] to make it redirect to the correct article. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thanks. Hamedvahid (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Edit-war at the DYK page
Could someone step in and stop it please? Lots of editors appear to be involved. Just the latest. Tony (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It only appears to be move protected, not fully protected. Mjroots (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Manipulation of BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:
- Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
- Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
- To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
- If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Request for the Creation of 2011 FIA GT1 Race Reports
Was told to come here to request for the creation of race reports for the latest and future events of the 2011 FIA GT1 World Championship season. At the moment, only administrators can create these pages and I would like to create them as I have done so before with all the results from the qualifying and race as well as background to the event(s). --Danny 93 (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I might be missing something here, but there appears to be no reason why you, or someone with knowledge of that event, could not create the articles. 2011 FIA GT1 Ordos round, for instance, is not under any protection level. Did you get an error attempting to create this article? Resolute 19:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps something to do with the title blacklist? Graham87 01:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Huh, what do you know? This is in there:
# ATTACK TITLES AND/OR PAGE MOVE VANDALISM TARGETS .*2011 FIA.*
I guess that would do it. Presuming that entry still needs to be there, perhaps it would be useful if Danny 93 starts the articles in their user space, then requests a move to article space? Resolute 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am still puzzled though as to why "2011 FIA" was added to the black list because I have gone through the history of most of the "2011 FIA" titles and I haven't seen much vandalism, either that or I haven't looked closely. Hopefully somebody could explain. --Danny 93 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Q on a strange thing
Can someone please double-check what I did on Control-Alt-Delete? It's weird to have an article hijacked and turned into something actually pretty decent, and I'm wondering if I got something completely wrong. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- It was hijacked by being replaced with a copy-paste of Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic), which already is dab-able from the top, so I think you did the right thing. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't open a page to delete it
How does one delete User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log.js? It crashes my browser (presumably because it's so large, 889,514 bytes) whenever I try to open it. I know that I can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking_log.js&action=history and click the delete tab, but there's no way for me to know what criterion is being claimed for speedy deletion, let alone whether that criterion applies. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what the reason claimed is as I can't spot a tag or claim but a c&p of the start of the page is as follows:
Extended content
|
---|
User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log.js Template-info.svg Documentation for this script can be added at User:CommonsNotificationBot/tracking log. Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Internet Explorer: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: hold down the Shift key while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R). Google Chrome and Safari users can just click the Reload button. For details and instructions about other browsers, see Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. File%3ADavid_beeri.jpg|1315256841|1314745621|None|None|{}|{} |
Timrollpickering (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the cause of the deletion request is, but I can find no such request on the page, nor can I find anything in the history where anyone requested deletion OF that page. You may want to buzz the botop who runs that bot to see what's what. --Jayron32 22:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- The template {{speedy delete}} appears somewhere down below the halfway mark, which I assume is causing the issue. I buzzed the botop on his talk page to see what he wants to do about it, but I trust that us admins who patrol C:SD are smart enough to realize that there's something off before we delete that page in the meantime. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Outstanding CFDs need a closer
There are two discussions still open at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 25 and due to involvement most of the regular CFD closing admins are unable to close them due to being involved in the discussions:
- Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College (Declaration of interest: I am supporting the proposal)
- People by school parent categories (Declaration of interest: I am the nominator)
If any help is needed with implementing the closure decision please let me know. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Request review of move closure
Hi. I closed a move earlier today ([1]), and my decision has been challenged ([2]). As per my usual policy, I'm posting here to request review from the community of my action, and to accept any necessary correction. Thanks in advance for any input. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Given the almost unanimous opposition to the move, I really don't see how you could have closed it any other way. Your expanded rationale seems perfectly sensible to me. 28bytes (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- While I personally would have !voted in favor of moving the article, there was certainly no consensus in favor, and I doubt more discussion would have changed that. I think the close was clearly reasonable. (though I can see an argument for no-consensus as well) Monty845 05:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Certainly within the bounds of administrator discretion, and I probably would have close the same way. The WordsmithTalk to me 07:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Echo all above. I'd prefer to lose the Swami but the consensus seems resoundingly clear to keep it. Closure and rationale both seem fine to me. --160.39.17.21 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Since I raised the question, I suppose I should clarify why I did so. While I'm sure GTBacchus acted with the best of intentions, it was not evident from the edit comment on closure why it was necessary to close an ongoing (albeit somewhat frustrating) discussion or which arguments were persuasive. We don't know if it was a procedural matter (such as some prescribed amount of time having elapsed without establishing a consensus), or whether the arguments against the move were in some regard more convincing than those in favour. I simply sought clarity in the reason for closure. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for your comments.
I didn't think the discussion was ongoing. There hadn't been any new posts for over 24 hours. I guess I could have waited another day or two, but there's a large and growing backlog at WP:RM, and I was looking for discussions I could close. If I was premature, I apologize, and I'm glad you asked for an expanded rationale, LeadSongDog.
I'm wondering, though... Would it be better if we were to set a certain amount of time that must pass in order for a move discussion to be considered no longer ongoing? If that were written down somewhere, then it might obviate some misunderstandings, and it would give people something to fall back on. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for your comments.
Why "we should care about copyright"
(This is intended for all established editors; AN is the best approximation of that I could think of.) You may all be interested in a piece published in yesterday's Signpost entitled "The copyright crisis, and why we should care" (by User:Moonriddengirl) about instilling a respect of copyright within the community at large. Since established editors are often in the copyright enforcement front line, it should make for a particularly interesting read.
The Signpost is a weekly community publication modelled on traditional print media (I am its current, interim, editor-in-chief). If you would like to subscribe to it (as many hundreds of Wikipedians do in some form), seeWikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe . - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
86.128.16.180
(moved to ANI) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Multilingual Admin needed.
2.224.12.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been temporarily blocked here (heading for an indefinete) and is on a longterm block on the German Wikipedia for deliberately inserting false or crystalball information about local government issues (districts/municipalities). He/she is apparently on a statice fastweb id and it looks like the same beahviour is occuring accross several wikis. Sofar I have checked frWiki and can see similar edits so I suspect other language wikis are effected too. As his edits superficially look legit and the activity field is rather unwatched I would need someone who has knowledge of procedures on those wikis where he is active who can alert the relevant projects to doublecheck his edits. Agathoclea (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is then a case for http://meta.wikimedia.org .. there are admins there who can lock the IP cross-wiki, and you are more likely to be able to find one there who speaks those languages (I can do Dutch, and some German, my French is not the best, and I am not able to lock the account cross-wiki anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- The place to request a global block is at m:Steward requests/Global. --Jayron32 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, request a global lock at meta. In future, if you need someone speaking a certain language, you can look at Wikipedia:Local Embassy, which lists a lot of users speaking certain languages. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Based on this listing of contributions and blocks the IP is currently blocked on all the individual Wikipedias where he is currently active (in the last two weeks). If someone wants to take the time to study their contributions perhaps the block here on enwiki should be extended to at least a month, possibly six months. Being blocked in so many different places suggests they are up to no good and are not listening to any feedback. I would have no objection to a six-month global block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree, request a global lock at meta. In future, if you need someone speaking a certain language, you can look at Wikipedia:Local Embassy, which lists a lot of users speaking certain languages. Regards SoWhy 17:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of requesting it at Meta. Regards SoWhy 18:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Strange behavior of Siddhant2010
At the first he made an unconstructive edit onUser talk:Prasannjit.gondchawar, then he apologized me for his "mistake". Then, he repeated similar edit again, and also apologized to Tide rolls (who didn't reverted his edit) by the same text he posted to me. If you ask me, that's a little strange, he made the same error twice in a row, and (what is probably even stranger) same apology for us both... Alex discussion ★ 18:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there is anything nefarious going on. The editor is a member of Wikipedia:India Education Program, a project that gets students as Pune University in India to work on Wikipedia articles, and is experimenting with technical Wikipedia features that he doesn't really understand. (Trying to give a fancy welcome message to another student.) Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
BLP topic ban for La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie, consensus is to ban La goutte de pluie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from all BLPs. Since RfCs are non-binding but with a community discussion; but WP:AN or WP:ANI community decisions are binding. It was 7 days since the proposal arraign. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 19:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)