Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:06, 18 October 2012

This is not the page to report problems to administrators, or discuss administrative issues. This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard page (and some of its subpages, including /Incidents). Report incidents such as block evasion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Discuss general issues at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard. Report posting of personal information by following instructions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight. Request discussions need to be closed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure.

Archives

December 2004 December 2004 – April 2005 June 2005 – February 2006 March 2006 – December 2006 December 2006 – November 2007 November 2007 – July 2008 July 2008 - July 2009 July 2009 - May 2010 May 2010 - February 2012 February 2012 - current

This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

May I use {{Sports-reference}}?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please see 1 and 2. I try to talk with Lagnutus, but he rollbacked my edits that I had so justified: «the template "sports-reference" is designed to be used in the "external links", the important thing is not to be used as "reference" in the article. In its place, you can use the site olympic.org as source» --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

SportsReference appears to be the same as IMDB ... not a WP:RS, but usable to identify the person through external links dangerouspanda 10:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"It appears" It either is or it isn't - which is it? I used this site as an inline ref, but this "user" who can't even spell my name removes them. I simply restored them. Get over it. Next. Lugnuts 17:22, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This dispute doesn't belong here. Please follow the guidelines at WP:DR. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Are admin's ban proposals made at ANI optional?

Hi, just a quick question. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in a discussion that ended up with an admin proposing a topic-ban for all three involved editors (myself and 2 others) for 4 months, you can see it here (someone stroked through the discussion for some reason) This was the admin's ruling:

Proposals

All three of the above i.e. Wee Curry Monster, Gaba p and Langus-TxT should seek mentoring.
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). All three of the above should enter into a voluntary interaction ban on working with one another for three months.
All three of the above are topic banned from working on Falkland Islands related articles, broadly construed, for a period of four months.

Now, one of the topic-banned editors (WCM) said he refused to accept the ruling ("I will not accept a topic ban and if that is what you intend to impose upon me, then frankly you may as well to resort to blocking me straight away") and sure enough two weeks later he's back at editing the articles he supposedly was topic banned from. So my question is: are admin rulings made at ANI optional? I was under the impression that they were mandatory but I could be wrong, in which case I'll think about adhering to the topic-ban imposed upon me or not. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That was a proposal, not a community consensus for a ban. Nobody Ent 11:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see, what exactly would you call a community consensus for a ban if an admin ruling at ANI is not? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The "ruling" was the following:

This needs an involved admin to simply step up and push for a resolution between the parties. It does not need a lengthy hashing and re-hashing at AN/I. Volunteers that wish to help the parties resolve this, speak up. Otherwise, let's drop this off at the dump, it has outlived its usefulness as a thread here. -- Avanu (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

A community consensus on the other hand is when there is a discussion and there are supports and opposes and then an admin decides on the consensus of the community. In the above case Avanu closed it saying lets just let it go and have an involved admin help the parties come to a resolution. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning, someone must be talking about me, surely not, no one gave me a courtesy notice they were seeking sanctions against me. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... this is the Talk page Wee, nobody is seeking sanctions here. I'm just asking about the ruling made by the involved admin and how it affected us. Thank you DJSasso that clarifies my question so I guess the bans proposed by MacDui are actually optional. Since Wee already decided not to abide by them, perhaps I too will not. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's condescending to tell Wee this is the talk page, they know that. The answer to your question is that it didn't and doesn't affect you because it's wasn't a ruling or consensus, just an idea tossed out in discussion. Nobody Ent 12:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

If he knows this is the Talk page and that no sanctions can be proposed/imposed here, then why is he claiming "they were seeking sanctions against me"? He is either 1- not aware that this is the Talk page, 2- not aware that sanctions are not proposed/imposed here or 3- just having some fun with the ol' mud slinging.

Yes Nobody, as I said in my previous comment, Djsasso answered my question thank you. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving

{{archive top}} I think it would be an improvement if the conclusion is marked with a symbol. A yes mark if proposal is agreed on, a no mark if proposal is rejected, a no-consensus mark if a consensus wasn't reached. -- A Certain White Cat 13:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GiantSnowman

Nobody Ent changed the header, removing the "administrator GiantSnowman's", claiming consensus. Since there was no discussion of this, and the discussion was closed, this was improper.

ANI reports typically name an editor whose behavior raises concern. It is odd that administrators get special treatment. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Your previous heading of 'GiantSnowman's personal attack and edit warring' did not reflect the consensus of the discussion - both of us could have acted better. I asked for it to be changed to a more neutral one, the closer agreed. I don't understand why you won't let this topic go, and I don;t understand why me being an admin is of such concern/interest to you. PS this header is equally as bad and I'd ask for it to be changed as well. GiantSnowman 18:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I've also notified Nobody Ent (talk · contribs), the original closer, as Kiefer has failed to do so. GiantSnowman 18:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobody Ent isn't an admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So they aren't. Still. GiantSnowman 18:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not consider GiantSnowman's sysop relevant to this discussion as, as far as I know, there was no use of admin privileges in the dispute over the Rfa comment. Refactoring section headers isn't uncommon; I'll leave it to the rest of the community to determine whether the existing title is appropriate or not. Nobody Ent 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Kiefer, the consensus may be referring to a consensus that ANI/AN headers should be as neutral as is practical, and a consensus does exist for that. If it had said "GiantShowman's behavior", no one would have changed it. What is and isn't appropriate is often in the eye of the beholder, and I can see both sides of the argument (it is specific without being an attack itself, yet it is a inflammatory claim) so I have to look at the faith of the person modifying it. Even if you and others disagree with the change, the change was at least based on previous conclusions that titles should be as neutral as possible. More importantly, Nobody Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. As far as GS's comments to Malleus, yeah, I agree they were inappropriate but that whole event was arguably a push. I mean seriously, even Malleus would admit he has made much stronger comments to others there and elsewhere, all of which I would tell anyone that they are best to just overlook, admin bit or not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

IBAN request?

I have requested an IBAN between myself and another editor on the COIN board here. User:Nouniquenames mentioned a couple times that since I am requesting a specific admin action it should have been on this board, but also that this could be forum shopping. I didn't know when I started the string that the discussion would turn into an admin request.

I have never been through this process before, so I thought I would just ask - how do I get a concrete decision from an administrator? I may be a little impatient because I am eager to resume regular editing, but it's definitely ok if I should just wait on COIN. I just want to make sure I'm doing it the right way. Corporate 02:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans are usually imposed by consensus, not by a single admin, despite the fact that they at often discussed at the admin noticeboard. I don't think taking this specific part of the discussion to AN would be forum shopping. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and started a string. Am I suppose to put together any kind of more elaborate post? I think the explanation is already on the COIN board and I see no need to spill the drama over to AN. Also, how long does it take? I am waiting on this to resolve before I improve the article on Brand management, so I can edit with confidence I won't be pounced on. Corporate 12:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)