|
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
Contents
- 1 Requests for closure
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 1.1.1 MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr
- 1.1.2 Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
- 1.1.3 Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else
- 1.1.4 Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
- 1.1.5 Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML
- 1.1.6 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size
- 1.1.7 Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption
- 1.1.8 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
- 1.1.9 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead
- 1.1.10 Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?
- 1.1.11 Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation
- 1.1.12 Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?
- 1.1.13 Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing
- 1.1.14 Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?
- 1.1.15 Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011
- 1.1.16 Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine
- 1.1.17 Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article
- 1.1.18 Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"
- 1.1.19 Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
- 1.1.20 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
- 1.1.21 Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
- 1.1.22 Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article
- 1.1.23 RfC: Should the events be removed?
- 1.1.24 Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II
- 1.1.25 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files
- 1.1.26 Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?
- 1.1.27 Talk:Sea Mither#Simple
- 1.1.28 Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
- 1.1.29 Talk:The Salvation Army#RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English
- 1.1.30 Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right
- 1.1.31 Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016
- 1.1.32 Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference
- 1.1.33 Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
- 1.2 Backlogs
- 1.3 XfD
- 1.4 Administrative
- 1.5 Requested moves
- 1.1 Requests for comment
- 2 Backlog at WP:UAA
- 3 My possibly flawed reasoning
- 4 Request for edit filter manager permission
- 5 Shawn Loiseau IP range vandalism
- 6 A post-review would be good
- 7 Social work
- 8 req?
- 9 Ja⍰alif
- 10 Opinions on ANI thread
- 11 Vandalism
- 12 keep contents remove resources
- 13 Cloning an article
- 14 Advance notice: deprecation of several JavaScript functions
- 15 Someone is proposing a community ban
- 16 Repeated undone/reverting edits on Godzilla (1998 film)
- 17 Enacting a topic ban
Requests for closure
- These requests for closure are transcluded from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.
Requests for comment
MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr
Would an uninvolved administrator please assess the consensus at MediaWiki talk:Move-redirect-text#Redr (Initiated 108 days ago on 12 December 2015)? —Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- This was going to be no consensus or consensus against, but discussion has renewed for a solution that will satisfy the opposition, so this should not be closed yet. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:David L. Jones#RFC: Inclusion of draft sections (Initiated 109 days ago on 11 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- On hold There is an open sock investigation of one of the RFC participants for voting irregularities relating to this article. It it results in a block then I believe it may be appropriate to strike their !votes before evaluating a close. Alsee (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ncmvocalist, it looks like SPI is probably backlogged. See the sock investigation link I gave. It's still listed as open, with no response yet from any admin, clerk, or checkuser. Once it's resolved anyone can remove the "On Hold" and close it. Alsee (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Alsee: please provide status update or follow up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else
It was redated once and it's been ongoing for 54 days now, but discussion has pretty much died down. All of the monitors of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics voted for a third option, "often": 1, 2, 3 and 4. Current article lead hasn't existed for very long so nothing is yet "stable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- Done, discussion is closed. no result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I apologize for not explaining well enough but the point was to finally assess concensus as either or, not just closing it. I'll undo the closure in await for someone to actually decide either or. If there is no result it shall just be redated and reopened and the discussion and RfC continued because that is the proper procedure if there is no result yet, not closure. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Political correctness#Generally or primarily or something else (Initiated 60 days ago on 29 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Correction: It was actually initiated on 28 November 2015, but redated a few times for the RfC bot. I'd also like to specify that this request was asked for to finally get an "either or" result, and not just "no decision". There was a request for closure of this discussion already above, but because of the discussion at the talk of this very project page I'll briefly mention this here for now and if the one above is returned I'll remove this bit. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Séralini affair#RfC Regarding content scope and neutrality (Initiated 106 days ago on 14 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- not done as further edits seem to have overtaken the last participation in the RfC so as to make formal assessment unnecessary unless a participant requires. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
1. Should we include the mention that Seralini's papers have been published in the peer-reviewed literature?
2. Should we include the studies which are discussed - or within the actual scope, of this article?
- Agree, its a hotly contested article in the GMO area that was part of a recent Arbcom case, and should be closed. I cant close it because of my involvement in that case, but even if I could I wouldnt as a NAC. AlbinoFerret 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree with not closing the RfC. I think it is helpful to answer these two questions:
Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Special:Preferences#RfC: Change Default Math Appearance Setting to MathML (Initiated 107 days ago on 13 December 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- This should run for another week or two, as it was not properly advertized and got insufficient attention. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not done - discussion has recently picked up again with a drive for more participants. Sam Walton (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Fixing images below the default size (Initiated 291 days ago on 12 June 2015)? See the subsection Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#RfC: Should the guideline maintain the "As a general rule" wording or something similar?. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Gun laws in Illinois#RfC: Magazine capacity and state preemption (Initiated 58 days ago on 31 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 125#RfC on Wikipedia:Authority Control (Initiated 64 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead
We need an experienced editor to assess the discussion in the above link. The difference of opinion lies in whether an article about a train station, or railway station, should begin with simply the name of the station (for example, "Culver City") or whether it should begin with the title of the article, like "Culver City station." Discussion has tapered off; recent remarks have simply repeated the arguments made earlier. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 36 days ago on 22 February 2016)
Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Talk:Russell Wilson#Should the language addressing Wilson's ethnicity be changed? (Initiated 53 days ago on 5 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should resting place include cremation (Initiated 48 days ago on 10 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Mitsubishi Magna#RfC: Is referenced comparative material false/unfit for article? (Initiated 63 days ago on 26 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi#RFC for sourcing (Initiated 64 days ago on 25 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Maya civilization#RfC: Maya Calendar: How many piktuns in a kalabtun? (Initiated 50 days ago on 8 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories#RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011 (Initiated 56 days ago on 2 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Planet Nine#RfC: Images used for Planet Nine (Initiated 54 days ago on 4 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Proscenium#RfC: the relevance of the Teatro Olimpico to this article (Initiated 49 days ago on 9 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams"
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)#RfC on "including predecessor teams" (Initiated 65 days ago on 24 January 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 Drafts (Initiated 65 days ago on 24 January 2016)? The discussion was listed at and archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#The word "like"
This needs an accurate analysis before a closing rationale. George Ho (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 48 days ago on 10 February 2016)
Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed? (Initiated 43 days ago on 15 February 2016)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note that one of the editors in the discussion has requested admin closure, by someone who is familiar with MFD [1]. Sunrise (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Australian head of state dispute#Request for comment: How to deal with this article
IMHO, this Rfc's options have been unintentionally worded in a non-neutral style & therefore, the Rfc should be closed. Note I've opened up a new Rfc, which presents the same options, but rather in a neutral style. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) (Initiated 43 days ago on 15 February 2016)
- Comment: This RfC should not be closed in isolation - there is also an associated merge discussion ongoing, and the two are closely related. (For example, a couple of votes in the merge discussion are apparently based on reasons presented in the previous RfC.) In my opinion, the new RfC simply adds to the considerable unnecessary verbiage on the page. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Update: The first Rfc has expired as no consensus for any of the 3 options. Furthermore, I've closed the second Rfc (that I had opened), per StAnselm's point, about "unnecessary verbiage".:) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should the events be removed?
I'm requesting an admin or an experienced user to assess the consensus at the mentioned page. (Initiated 39 days ago on 19 February 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Time Person of the Year#Rfc: Elizabeth II
This Rfc has reached its 30th day. We need an administrator to close it & make his/her own interpretation of the results. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Close down Possibly Unfree Files
Consensus is fairly obvious to close down PUF and merge it with WP:FFD. The closure should be uncontentious, but the enacting of the results will require some work. Posting this here so if anyone wants to go through the grunt work of closing down and marking "historical" the PUF process and then redirecting users in the relevant documentation to WP:FFD, they can get started on that. Also, someone will have to move the backlog of cases from PUF (or clear them) as well. Thanks for any help! --Jayron32 18:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 7#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge could potentially be referenced for most necessary steps that need to be taken for this merge. The only major differences between the referenced section and the PUF to FFD merge are that no venue is getting renamed and the changes that will need to be made to AnomieBOT's function are slightly different (the bot will have to stop making daily subpages for PUF after the merge has been finalized.) I made some attempt to work out the NFCR to FFD merge, so feel free to ping me with any questions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC: War faction or country infobox?
This RfC expired a week ago, but was never closed. A formal closure is needed, as involved editors are starting to make a bit of a mess. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Sea Mither#Simple
Per WP:SNOW, but the primary editors of the article refuse to acknowledge consensus. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Debbie Does Dallas#RfC: Placement of video
This RfC has been open since 14 February has seen no activity for about 10 days. Since this deals with a contentious issue that is certain to come up again, it would be helpful if this was closed by a previously uninvolved admin (or possibly more than one). before closing this RfC, it would be useful to read through the discussion below and to have a thorough understanding of how embedding files works on Wikipedia. Right Hand Drive (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:The Salvation Army#RfC: Should the language of this British organisation be in British English
Could an admin take the appropriate closure action here and change the page notice on the article? A decision to force AmEng on the article last year was done so on a false statement on the original variant of English used, and the current consensus reflects the truth of the matter. – SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:English Democrats#RfC: Far right
Expired RfC does not appear to let the actual article remain on a consensus version without official closure. I think it is possible to determine consensus and close it, so I am requesting it here. LjL (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Hindu_philosophy#Requested_move_21_March_2016
Would an experienced user or Admin, assess the consensus and move the page if deemed so?VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference
Would an experienced editor assess the consensus at Talk:Avoiding_dangerous_climate_change#Originally_about_2005_conference (Initiated 31 days ago on 27 February 2016)? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach#RfC:_Emphasize_benchmark_dates_in_Bach_Legacy_time_line_instead_of_using_arbitrary_century_markers_like_1800.2C_1900.2C_2000_etc.
Really need an administrator to close this one, because this was the third RfC on the same subject in 80 days, and a lot of unorthodox behavior is involved. Softlavender (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Backlogs
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Discussions awaiting closure
This discussion forum has an extensive backlog with approximately 170 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 2016. — xaosflux Talk 23:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion
This discussion forum has a typical backlog with approximately 20 discussions that have yet to be closed, the oldest of which is from January 25, 2016. (14:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC))
- Please note that there's a discussion at WP:ANI#MfD end run GAME. Furthermore, previous deletions have been based on modified policy. If someone could do a damage check, it'd be appreciated. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requested moves
We currently have 89 discussions in the backlog, and it's growing every day. Several of them date to January 2016.--Cúchullain t/c 21:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files
Unclosed discussions from 2015 December 4, 2015 December 7 and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 December 29. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pinging @Explicit: and @TLSuda: as the most active admins in the FFD/PUF area both of which need a bit of attention.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
XfD
Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 December 2#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg (Initiated 170 days ago on 11 October 2015)? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Steel1943 relisted the discussion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 24#File:Good Morning Britain 1986 sofa.jpg. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sargun Mehta/1
The subject GAR is open for community reassessment since October 2015. Need someone to conclude it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 8#Shenae
Listed for a month individually, and started as part of a batch on 14 February. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Administrative
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment?
Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jonadabsmith engaging in harassment? (Initiated 25 days ago on 4 March 2016)? See the subsection Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: Topic Ban. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive916#User:Mhhossein and SaffV reported for harassment
I'm requesting an admin to assess the consensus at this thread. Besides multiple other uncivilities by the nominator (such as when he told me that I was "tripping on acid" or "belonged in a place where I should be taken care of on hourly basis") he did not refrain from making further attacks by saying "your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me", "...then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult" and "the English you used was childish and quite wrong". After reporting it, he surprisingly repeated his attack on the ANI page! I have explained in detail how many times he had been warned by admins to resolve his major civility issues. Thank you. (Initiated 20 days ago on 9 March 2016) Mhhossein (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Requested moves
Backlog at WP:UAA
Just wanted to give you fine admins a heads up on the backlog of usernames listed at WP:UAA. Looks liek some request go back to the 14th, and there's quite a few on the page currently. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Huge backlog at WP:UAA
If a few admins can take a look at WP:UAA, it would be appreciated - there is a major backlog of entries there requiring review. Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
My possibly flawed reasoning
Could someone please check my reasoning here:
Many thanks,
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can not fully agree with you. For example, User:Barack Obama (we used to have such user, but they were forcibly renamed because of the SUL issues, but we still have User:Barack Obama is Satan!) was a clear impersonation of a famous person just because of the username, even if they never edited Obama-related articles and never claimed any relation to Obama. In fact, if Barack Obama themself wanted to edit Wikipedia under his own username, we would likely require an OTRS permission. I am not sure whether Michael Cane and Pankaj Choudhary raise to a comparable level of fame, but the requirement to rename the user might be an overrreaction (and as such it is debatable, I guess there might be tons of Michaels Cains walking around), but I would certainly not reject it outright.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say that "Michael Caine" is a common enough name that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that it's an impersonator, unless they're editing pages related to Michael Caine the actor. That doesn't mean there's not necessarily other problems with that account. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
- Does he write slowly? That's how you know it's him. (Old Phil Hartman or Dana Carvey joke from the SNL audition archives.) 166.171.120.121 (talk) 08:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed. Thank you, Only in death does duty end. In the spirit of the law, would Michael Caine, his people, or anyone who knows of him, actually think this might be him? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I know 2 Michael Caines (neither of which was born Maurice Micklewhite) its not that uncommon. The key word above is 'impersonating'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Ymblanter. :) True, and good points. But... "...If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided...." That says "sometimes". To me, that suggests that if the editor is User:Michael Caine editing Hollywood articles, a precautionary block would make sense. But this is User:Michaelcaine346 editing an Indian police officer article. Wouldn't the following more aptly apply: "...please note that editing under a username which represents an individual cannot be a violation unless they appear to be impersonating a notable living person..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Request for edit filter manager permission
Hello admins, please see Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard#Request_for_edit_filter_manager_permission for an active request for a non-admin access to this tool. Please comment on the EFN to keep the discussion in one place. — xaosflux Talk 16:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Shawn Loiseau IP range vandalism
Shawn Loiseau was protected, it's been a couple hours. Future reports can go to AIV or WP:RFPP, depending on circumstance. Keegan (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Several IPs with the same first 7 digits are vandalizing Shawn Loiseau. I thing we need a range block on them. CLCStudent (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those same IP addresses are now attacking User:E0steven. CLCStudent (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A post-review would be good
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
--QEDK (T 📖 C) 12:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose dragging that thread out any longer. Exactly the wrong direction the (now reopened) discussion needs. Let's keep this on one noticeboard for now, and then relocate the overall discussion to someplace where we can work on policy rather than trying to use sanctions to end the dispute. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Social work
The talk page of Social Work has codified anonymous editors IP's as all the same editor and in talk page history cited as rogue. I have two edits in it - but I find choosing to add continuously any IP's for personal pleasure of sorts goes within the boundaries of Wikipedia:Harassment and Bullying/Bite.(Do wikipedia have an Anti-bullying policy) Any edits that made are reverted or disrupted using policies. Further more there also seem to be a matter of ego or something else going over materials which have clear and genuine citation. Page protections are used extensively to avoid discussions or making any changes. I am at my wits end how to respond to these when it comes to Ego and Content Contribution. I am of the opinion both these shouldn't gel together.117.215.192.154 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, the reality is Wikipedia is full of rules and rules, and if you edit a higher profile article you'll be expected to figure 'em out or listen when the regulars try to explain them. My suggestions would be to find other articles to start with -- there are oodles in which somebody thought it would be a good idea to slap a this is wrong but I'm too lazy to fix it tag on top, and ask for help at teahouse, where the friendlier Wikipedia folk help out. NE Ent 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
req?
Hi, pls @admin/s put texts Araz (musical group) in User:Samak/Araz.--SaməkTalk 20:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Ja⍰alif
Can you please let me create the page Ja⍰alif? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasewteru (talk • contribs) 00:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- That looks like an encoding error - the symbol is one from the APL programming language. Is it intended to be another spelling of Jaꞑalif? Peter James (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Opinions on ANI thread
Can we have some eyes on Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#MfD end run GAME? I did suggest a topic ban and any progress on the issue on sluggish and barely non-existent. Not to mention, it might just hit 36 hours too. Any opinions there are encouraged. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Vandalism
Vandalism should be reverted or reported at WP:AIV in the first instance. Details of Wikipedia's other contact processes, including an email address to report vandalism, is available at Wikipedia:Contact us - Readers Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is someone vandalizing a Wikipedia page -- I am not familiar with Wikipedia, or it's use. But I do see vandalism in action. what should I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming that the page is not protected and the content is cleary vandalism you could remove it youself without any issue.--67.68.210.65 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Lulu1984123: what page? SQLQuery me! 07:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Protected Page
Is there a way to protect a page so it cannot be corrupted with vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is, but without the page name - we cannot do anything. SQLQuery me! 07:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
message Privately
Hello! I am not very familiar with all of the ways to operate Wikipedia. Is there a way for me to respond to a message with someone privately? As I am messaging about vandalism, I am nervous to draw more attention to the name in a public forum...
Thank you so much for your help!!! I can see when I receive messages, is there a way to send you a message privately, I don't know how to reply. Also I could not undo the changes the vandelizer made.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lulu1984123 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
keep contents remove resources
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
hi
do you know why persian version of wikipedia is like a disaster? it is because your amateur admins remove all reference to any website and claim that are advertising. they keep the content and just remove references. I do not know is any content without reference useful for you? do wikipedia want to claim it has generated all contents! it is shameful and I think you should revise your regulations! nobody would share its knowledge when they see you are removing their references and just using contents! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdimalekii (talk • contribs) 08:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mehdimalekii, this is a matter that you must take up at the Persian Wikipedia. The community at the English Wikipedia has no authority over the Persian Wikipedia or any other Wikipedia, and cannot help you. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cloning an article
- Yesterday someone, faced with a history attribution problem caused by splitting off a daughter article Y from an existing article X, wanted me to "clone" an article Y from the existing article X, and (so he seemed to think) at once Y's history would display a copy of all of X's editing history. If (for example) the original single article was about cows and sheep, after cloning, the matter about cows could be edited out of article X and the matter about sheep could be edited out of article Y.
- I explained that (as far as I knew) this "cloning" was impossible and that he would have to copy-and-paste or partially cut-and-paste from X to begin Y and then put a history note in Talk:Y .
- He said that this "cloning" was common and sometimes compulsory in the German Wikipedia. (I have never edited in the German Wikipedia.)
- Please what is the true situation? Is this "cloning" a new feature that I had not been told about? Or what? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Cloning the history? Never heard of it, Anthony. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I wonder if this could be done by importing the history elsewhere, and importing it back to the desired location (Graham87?). Whether it's a particular good idea, or permissable, is another question. –xenotalk 11:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Xeno: It could, but I don't think it's a good idea, as it would make people's contribution histories seem really weird, among other things. I first noticed this request at the requests for page importation page. Graham87 12:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is the Special:MergeHistory tool which can duplicate page histories, but the content of the current revision stays the same - as it would with importing, unless you imported a newer revision). Because of how the software works, it isn't possible for either of those methods to actually add partial content to the current revision. Dewiki might have a separate tool for doing so, but I haven't heard of it. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- As an example of the "Don't try this at home" effects of imports see User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037a and User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037b. The edits were only literally made on "A", but now appear in both "A" and "B" and the contributions appear in the contribution logs as if they were made in both. — xaosflux Talk 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Notice my other account's contributions in both. — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- This could be accomplished locally if we added ourselves as a transwiki source, bascially creating a Special:Fork tool - as Graham87 says, this would be "weird" at least at first. — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- As far as the user that wants a split, you can refer them to the existing processes for documenting attribution for split pages at Wikipedia:Splitting#Procedure and Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution. — xaosflux Talk 18:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hey everybody, as the one who asked Anthony Appleyard for article clones, I'd like to point you to de:WP:IU where articles from both international Wikipedias and the own, German Wikipedia may be nominated for import. The duplication process is equivalent to what we do at WP:IMP (or what xaosflux did with User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037a and User:Xaosflux/Sandbox2016037b. It is roughly explained in de:H:AIA#Lizenzkonforme Auslagerung durch Duplikation, where it is stated that this is the required process for article splits, wherever reasonably possible.
I'm also inviting Doc Taxon, who is the admin overseeing imports in de.wikipedia, to weigh in here. Doc Taxon, I just noticed that the second-best, alternative procedure has been used more often in the last weeks – if you found the time to shortly explain both the procedure and the pros and cons to all of us, that would be awesome! :)
Just another remark: Note that for me, this isn't in any way about my latest cases at all, and I'm fine with either decision. I think it was a great idea by Anthony to introduce this question here – it might indeed be interesting for us to (re)discuss all available options for attribution in such cases. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)- Please note, the don't try this at home example I have above is not available directly on enwiki right now, it should have the same results (except for an extra log entry), but required bouncing it off another project. — xaosflux Talk 04:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- PanchoS Thank you for working with everyone and taking care to ensure that attributions are maintained for content. We may need to revisit this topic to determine if there is community consensus to change the enwiki processes. — xaosflux Talk 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Xaosflux At least I think it's worth considering, but Doc Taxon's input would IMHO be key to assessing the de.wikipedia process as an option. Before even trying to obtain consensus, we should probably work on the tools, ensuring that it wouldn't unreasonably add to our administrators' workload. As for the restriction currently allowing only full clones, I can imagine a tool that filters a page history by sections involved should be possible. Corner cases might be difficult to solve and might need much testing, but I'd be ready to help with that, and I can imagine there would be interested admins at a number of major Wikipedia locales. Cheers, --PanchoS (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- In an article as it is edited, often sections come and go, and in some edits but not all, topics are mixed in one section. I do not hold with altering the texts of past edits :: that is gross falsification of editing history. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- As far as mechanics go, past edits wouldn't be changed in this process, some or all edits would be copied as-is to a secondary page. — xaosflux Talk 11:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anthony Appleyard Pls rest assured that nobody wants to rush into any new, half-baked process – at least I don't. All of this would clearly need extensive discussion and testing, plus there's no urgency as we currently do have a halfway working process. The only process worth being introduced might be one that works considerably better than any of the currently existing ones, including the one in de.wikipedia. --PanchoS (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Advance notice: deprecation of several JavaScript functions
Several legacy JavaScript functions built into MediaWiki are being hard-deprecated with the release of MediaWiki 1.27 in April; for more information, see this mailing list post. These functions are listed at WP:VPT#Breaking change: wikibits. Any user script, gadget or other JavaScript file that uses these functions will stop working sometime within the next month. Please check your personal JavaScript pages and refer to mw:ResourceLoader/Legacy JavaScript for details on how to refactor your code to accommodate these changes. If you need help, please ask at the Technical Village Pump. MER-C 12:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- To clarify, it's not that it won't work, it's that the library containing importScript (mw.legacy.wikibits) is no longer loaded by default, and you have to load it youself, or switch to mw.loader.load(). I recommend the latter, as the wikibits will be removed in November.
-- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}
21:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Someone is proposing a community ban
I have moved this discussion from ANI to here because admin user:KrakatoaKatie commented in it below that "Community ban discussions belong at AN". I hope we are now in the correct place. Tradediatalk 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Discussion here with examples provided: [2]. Long story short, User:LightandDark2000 appears to be well versed in Wikipedia rules enough to defend himself lawyer style by insisting he acts in good faith and shouldn't be harassed or punitively blocked, but still refuses to engage users' criticism of his editing style. Criticisms include stretching ambiguous sources to support his edits, reverting sourced edits then not undoing that when corrected despite the restriction posed on us by the 1RR, and only engaging in minimal discussion whenever we try to bring up the topic. As I said in the discussion, this dispute dates back to at least June: [3].
Note this module is subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL and a 1RR. As I proposed in that discussion, letting an administrator talk to him may be more effective since he doesn't listen to us. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Community ban discussions belong at AN, not on an article talk page. It certainly does seem that this editor is tendentious. The block log is longer than my arm. Katietalk 16:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- While AN is the better place for these things, it usually gets decided on ANI anyway. Everything happens on ANI. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't CB discussions be at WP:ANI (here)? WP:AN is mostly more esoteric admin notices, and isn't what "the community" rather, the subset of the community with any stomach for these discussions) pays much attention to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I recently requested to get a topic ban lifted on WP:ANI only to be told toward the end when it was clear it would not be lifted that I should have made the request at WP:AN. While it is clear the article talk page is not the correct place for discussion of bans, we need clearer instructions for editors on where is the correct place. DrChrissy (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless as to whether or not ANI is the proper venue for discussing community bans, I have placed a hat on the discussion on the talk page, redirecting users to this thread. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 23:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
As much fun as it is to watch old 'friends' get back together, this isn't the place. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 19:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
@Voidwalker: You're a spoilsport, but I'll be good. <g> BMK (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC) |
The problem is deeper and more persistent than the above seems to indicate. User:LightandDark2000 is a POV pusher who has been a very disruptive editor for a long time on the Syria module. His bad faith, bad source edits that broke long established consensus has turned all editors against him. You can read entire sections of complaints about him on the talk pages: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#I propose community ban on user:LightandDark2000 editing Syria- and Iraq-related maps, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 50#LightandDark2000, Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 60#Bad Edit: Raqqa Frontline and Module talk:Iraqi insurgency detailed map/Archive 4#User:LightandDark2000.
He has a habit of deleting complaint messages from his own talk page so that it would not reveal who he really is. Take a look at the history of edits of his talk page and you will discover dozens and dozens of deleted complaint messages from just the last year. Let me illustrate his general attitude by giving as an example, his latest "deletion". A user in good faith writes to him: "Your source: http://en.ypgnews.tk/2016/03/15/anti-is-forces-close-in-on-groups-raqqa-hq.html is a dead link. Please provide another source." You can verify that the link is indeed a dead link since it just leads you to the "main page" of the website (en.ypgnews.com). User:LightandDark2000 deletes the message with the edit summary: "It is not a dead link. Fix your computer." You can even see that in this same edit, he increments his "vandalism counter" ({{User:UBX/vandalized|47}}) by 1, implying that the user's message on his talk page, was vandalism!
Also there was a report about him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#User:LightandDark2000 intentionally misinterpret sources for editing Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and similar pages where he was blocked for one month. The mess he creates regularly takes time to be cleaned. He injects in the map his POV pushing and total disregard for other editors’ opinions, sources and established consensus & rules. He has done nothing but make the map wrong with his POV pushing & unresponsive behavior towards other editors. I am asking for him to be permanently banned from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Tradediatalk 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC) @bot: do not archive yet. 02:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have noticed that almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me. I see this, as well as this entire proposal, as unfairly biased. You cannot proposal a ban, or a block, just because someone has made a number of mistakes (in good faith, I might add). By the way, a permanent ban is unnecessary overkill (See WP:PUNITIVE). I have never tried to "ruin the map" or "vandalize", or "force my own point of view", I only tried to edit honestly according to the rules of Wikipedia, and recently, the localized rules added in in the sanctions. It's true that I have made mistakes. But everyone made mistakes, and I have always tried to correct my mistakes when I realized that I had made some, or at least brought it to discussion. Blocks and sanctions are not meant to be punitive either, so I can't see how this proposal (especially given the bias of the user who originally proposed it) has any legitimacy as well. If we were to follow this line of logic, every one of the users who has been complaining/pushing for me to be "permanently banned" should be banned as well. Not only have I been harassed on the Syria module talk, but I have also been attacked by a couple of users on the talk page, as you can see here. Why should I be banned when I am editing out of good faith, have absolutely no intention of disrupting or vandalizing the map, and there are also a number of users I get along with quite well on the module/article in question. By the way, there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more "POV" edits than those I have allegedly or unintentionally done (some of the mhave also engaged in serious cases of edit warring in the past few months). The users that are biased against be are currently dominating this discussion, and they are ganging up om me in an attempt to kick me off the module; I feel like I am being harassed through this proposal. Also, this "good faith" editor 2601:C7:8301:8D74:1DB4:BFDC:1999:782E that Tradedia cited is actually a WP:SOCKPUPPET of User:Pbfreespace3, where there is an ongoing SPI investigation regarding his active user of sockpuppets to cirvumvent his block. The fact that such biased users were cited as "good examples," including a sockpuppet, astonishes me and makes me question the very purpose of this proposal. I strongly believe that the users pushing for this ban want to ban me out of annoyance and punitive motives, not because of any good faith. I have also noticed that the vast majority of users who commented in the recent ban proposal (including the original proposal on the Syria module talk) are the users who are biased against me, so please note this carefully. And pertaining to the Syria module talk, a user there said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." and another said that "I think that not need a ban for editor user:LightandDark2000 he sometimes made mistakes but he said that he will no longer break the rules so I think do not need to judge him so severely. Each of us can make a mistake but it is always necessary to give a chance to mend..." If we were to ban or block a user every time they made a mistake on these "hot/contested topic" areas, we would hardly have any editors left to edit articles in any of those errors. Therefore, in light of the circumstances and the people involved in this proposal, I believe that this ban proposal should be declined. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:
- You say: “almost every single feed in the links provided are run/dominated by users that hate me.” I have counted a total of 16 different users on these feeds. So that’s a lot of “haters”! The relevant question is why a lot of these users “hate” you? Did it occur to you that this is because of your edits and attitude?
- You mention the important notion of assuming “good faith”. However after a while, the assumption of good faith can be completely obliterated by months and months of watching you make dishonest edit after dishonest edit.
- You invoke WP:PUNITIVE. However, you have to realize that the ban is not being requested to punish you, but rather to protect the map from your damaging edits that make it wrong and ruin its reputation, therefore spoiling the hard work of many honest editors.
- You claim that you have been “harassed” and “attacked”. However, users criticizing your edits should not be viewed as harassment or personal attacks. These users have nothing against you as a person. They have a problem with your edits. Instead of feeling like you have been victimized, you should instead ask yourself the question of why there is so much negativity around you. Opening a section discussing your bad edits and attitude is legitimate because they harm the encyclopedia, even if the venue should have been ANI instead of the module’s talk page.
- You mention that “there are a number of users (including some of those pushing for this ban) who have committed much more POV edits” than you. Other users behaving badly is not a valid excuse. If someone is breaking Wikipedia policy, then you should report them, as I have done myself this week, and this has resulted in blocks.
- Your bringing up accusations of sockpuppetry is really beside the point. Whether the IP is a sockpuppet or not is a matter to be determined at SPI. What is in focus here is your behavior and your general attitude in responding to valid questions. As your history of edits shows, you also respond the same way to users you do not accuse of sockpuppetry.
- You mention that “a user said, "I wouldn't go so far as to ban him..." However, this is the same user who subsequently opened this section here at ANI. So he must have changed his mind given your continued unresponsiveness… I think that your reaction to the latest section about you on the module’s talk page has been very disappointing to many users who feel that this is now a hopeless case. Tradediatalk 11:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- I will respond to the main points of your defense paragraph:
-
- I did not know that he was banned before for the same issue, which is why I did not support a ban. I still don't, I'd rather a moderator gives him a clear warning that if his behaviour persists, he'd see a topic ban or block. To be fair I was gonna bring up the vandalism counter myself, but after reading this discussion[4] of the sockpuppetry investigation I realized it had a good explanation. The rest of the deletions do not, however. I brought this to ANI because I wasn't aware of what the protocol is for someone proposing a ban in a talk page, but it was clear there was a dispute and I figured an admin would be listened to by the user, since he doesn't listen to anyone else.
-
- User:LightandDark2000 I keep repeating this every time, the biggest issue is your unresponsiveness to discussion. All of us regular contributors regularly engage each other in thorough discussion whenever a controversy emerges, you don't. I don't want to project onto your intentions, but your extensive use of Wikipedia policy links to defend yourself shows me that you are completely aware of what type of community Wikipedia is supposed to be, and this makes the assumption of good faith really hard to maintain. It's true users lose patience and regrettably resort to frustrated outbursts, but that does not erase the original criticism that you seek to ignore.
-
- It is very hard to defend you considering this has been ongoing for a year. If you wish to avoid being blocked, as there appear to be growing calls for that, this is the right moment to show you understand what's wrong and pledge to right it. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- And I must add, your claim that people are only criticizing you because they hate you personally is a sign of WP:CABALS and WP:MPOV. The ban proposals aren't to punish you, but to prevent disruptions to the map. You must focus on how disruptions can be prevented rather than on how it's unfair to you as a person. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Enough, I suggest that (although I will probably insert random horrible thing here just for being the one to suggest it) User:LightandDark2000 receive a indefinite ban from Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, due to repeated irresponsible editing as described above. Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Indefinite ban, for sure. BTW, he continues to misinterpret sources even today, like here, when he uses sentence "With all hilltops around the city captured" to justify changing village (not hill!), as far as 17 km from the city edge, to gov-controlled. If this isn't playing stupid (I don't know politically correct way to say this), I really don't know what is. Please stop this guy, he is really taking everyone's time and he should be dealt with like any other vandal. --Hogg 22 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Repeated undone/reverting edits on Godzilla (1998 film)
As stated above, there's been repeated undoing/reverted sourced edits in the lead section of the Godzilla (1998 film) page by an anonymous IP user. As shown here, I added in the lead that the film was a box office failure and provided three sources that support the claim however, this anonymous user keeps undoing the edit to state that the film was a box office success without citing any sources. If you check the revision history, this has been going on and on for nearly a week or so, examples here and here. I can't contact this person to discuss the issue because he/she has no talk page and keeps using various IP addresses. I'm really at a loss at what to do here and bringing this issue to this notification board was the only logical thing I could think of. Someone please help? Armegon (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Enacting a topic ban
Need an admin to enact a ban here. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 07:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)