Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:44, 12 August 2012 editNick-D (talk | contribs)Administrators106,130 edits →Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek: cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 08:13, 12 August 2012 edit undoJtrainor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,011 edits →Request by Volunteer MarekNext edit →
Line 158: Line 158:


*'''Oppose''' - Are we not yet tired of having our chain yanked by people like this? ] (]) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC) *'''Oppose''' - Are we not yet tired of having our chain yanked by people like this? ] (]) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' unban. Why should he get an unblock just for his own personal gain? ] (]) 08:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


===Possible sock=== ===Possible sock===

Revision as of 08:13, 12 August 2012

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Template:Active editnotice

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Cleanup resources, Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects, Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Competence is required, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, Misplaced Pages:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction. "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Assume no clue.
    Noticeboards
    Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
    General
    Articles and content
    Page handling
    User conduct
    Other
    Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

      You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.


      Archives

      Index no archives yet (create)


      This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.
      Shortcuts

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages 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.

      Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

      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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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 {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

      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

      Administrative discussions

      Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

      (Initiated 13 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for closure review

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 16 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

      Requests for comment

      Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

      (Initiated 80 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

      Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_guidelines_in_WP:TPO_also_apply_to_archived_talk_pages?

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Discussion seems to have petered out a month ago. Consensus seems unclear. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

      information Note: Needs admin closure imho, due to its importance (guideline page), length (101kb), and questions about neutrality of the Rfc question and what it meant. Mathglot (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
      And in true Streisand effect fashion, this discussion, quiescent for six weeks, has some more responses again. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
      {{doing}} voorts (talk/contributions) 23:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
      Oops; I put this in the wrong section. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

      information Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Grey_Literature

      (Initiated 47 days ago on 10 November 2024) Discussion is slowing significantly. Likely no consensus, personally. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

      Option 2 was very clearly rejected. The closer should try to see what specific principles people in the discussion agreed upon if going with a no consensus close, because there should be a follow-up RfC after some of the details are hammered out. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 03:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
       Doing... —Compassionate727  13:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
      @Compassionate727: Still working on this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      Ugh… in practice, no. I'm still willing to do it, but it's in hiatus because of the three(!) pending challenges of my closures at AN, while I evaluate to what extent I need to change how I approach closures. If somebody else wants to take over this, they should feel free. —Compassionate727  22:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
      Taking a pause is fair. Just wanted to double check. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      asking for an update if possible. I think this RFC and previous RFCBEFORE convos were several TOMATS long at this point, so I get that this might take time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

      Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_on_signing_RFCs

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) - probably gonna stay status quo, but would like a closure to point to Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Check Your Fact

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 13 November 2024) RfC has elapsed, and uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#RfC: Should a bot be created to handle AfC submissions that haven't changed since the last time they were submitted?

      (Initiated 41 days ago on 15 November 2024) This RfC expired five days ago, has an unclear consensus, I am involved, and discussion has died down. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC Indian numbering conventions

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 16 November 2024) Very wide impact, not much heat. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:List of fictional countries set on Earth#RfC on threshold for inclusion

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 20 November 2024) TompaDompa (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Israel#RfC

      (Initiated 34 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#RfC about the naming conventions for boy bands

      (Initiated 18 days ago on 8 December 2024) No further participation in the last 7 days. Consensus is clear but I am the opener of the RfC and am not comfortable closing something I am so closely involved in, so would like somebody uninvolved to close it if they believe it to be appropriate.RachelTensions (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

      I'm not comfortable closing a discussion on a guideline change this early. In any case, if the discussion continues as it has been, a formal closure won't be necessary. —Compassionate727  13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
      CfD 0 0 0 26 26
      TfD 0 0 0 11 11
      MfD 0 0 0 1 1
      FfD 0 0 1 6 7
      RfD 0 0 9 67 76
      AfD 0 0 0 3 3

      Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#List of Chalcolithic cultures of China

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 17#List of Neverwinter Nights characters

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 30 October 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Lu Tianna

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 24#Shen an calhar

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 2 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#unmentioned suikoden characters (episode 1: a-h)

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 21#Clock/calendar

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 14 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 14#File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

      (Initiated 37 days ago on 19 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 November 27#File:The Musician (Erling Blöndal Bengtsson) by Ólöf Pálsdóttir.jpg

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 2#File:Batman superman.PNG ==

      (Initiated 24 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Est. 2021/sandbox/CURRENT

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 5 December 2024) If there is consensus to do one of the history splitting operations but the closer needs help implementing it I would be willing to oblige. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Golden Lion size.jpg

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion/2024 December 9#File:Ang Panday 1986 animated series.jpg

      (Initiated 17 days ago on 9 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

      (Initiated 93 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal: Age and health concerns regarding Trump

      (Initiated 71 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Tesla Cybercab#Proposed merge of Tesla Network into Tesla Cybercab

      (Initiated 69 days ago on 18 October 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. N2e (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

      I think it would be better to leave that discussion be. There is no consensus one way or the other. I could close it as "no consensus," but I think it would be better to just leave it so that if there's ever anyone else who has a thought on the matter, they can comment in that discussion instead of needing to open a new one. —Compassionate727  14:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 59 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Stadion Miejski (Białystok)#Requested move 5 November 2024

      (Initiated 51 days ago on 5 November 2024) RM that has been open for over a month. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Move_review/Log/2024 November#Carousel (film)

      (Initiated 48 days ago on 8 November 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Shiv Sena#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Discussion seems to have stopped. As the proposal is not uncontroversial, and I, as the initiator, am involved, I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close the discussion. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Williamsburg Bray School#Splitting proposal

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 27 November 2024) Only two editors—the nominator and myself—have participated. That was two weeks ago. Just needs an uninvolved third party for closure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

       Doing... BusterD (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 2#Rafael de Orleans e Bragança

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 2 December 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

      Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

      Please comment in this thread about blocks

      Hello, everyone. Any administrators or users who are knowledgeable about blocks are invited to please comment on a proposed change to the username policy, which would affect how administrators assess a decent chunk of blocks on the English Misplaced Pages. There has been little participation so far, making consensus-building difficult. See this section. NTox · talk 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

      TfD backlog

      Hi Administrators. WP:TFD has quite a backlog at the moment. User:Plastikspork, who's been doing many of the closures recently seems to be away at the moment. Is anyone able to help out? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

      Humboldt Cave AFD

      An editor has tagged Humboldt Cave for AFD, following a dispute with another editor over an unrelated AFD. I've asked at the first editor's talk page for him or her to remove the tag, but it looks like the AFD for Humboldt Cave should be closed, as it does not appear to have been made in good faith. It hasn't been added to today's AFD log page yet. Lone boatman (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

      I have removed the bad-faith AfD tag from the article and deleted the associated AfD page. Will explain on the talk page of the editor concerned. Kim Dent-Brown 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      Thanks. The name pretty much says it all. Angryjo2012london (talk · contribs) is mad at some Olympic boxing judges and created a spate of one-line articles on judges concerning their "controversial and scandalous" decisions. Unfortunately, the references don't actually name the judges in conjunction with the press coverage of the dispute - the names were derived from the match scorecards. I deleted them all as unsourced negative biographies. Rather than create a policy-compliant article on 2012 Olympic boxing controversy (there's probably been one for every Olympiad) as I advised, they've chosen to argue. Having failed to gain traction at WP:DRN, where they were told to go to WP:DRV, they've chosen to start a retaliatory AfD on Humboldt Cave, one of my recent articles. Acroterion (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      Have re-removed, and will block if it's added a third time. Kim Dent-Brown 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      I just noticed that Angryjo2012london has not been notified of this discussion. This should have been done when the first report was filed, as it says in angry red letters at the top of this page.... I have now notified and I hope the user concerned steps back now. Kim Dent-Brown 13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

      Please revoke talk page access

      Due to misuse the talk page access revoked by 28bytes (non-admin closure) - --DBigXray 14:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      User talk:PsiEpsilon needs talk page access revoked. There are too many diffs see talk page history. Ryan Vesey 14:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

       Done. 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      I had already asked the blocking admin to take a look. Thanks for doing it. --DBigXray 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Policy question

      WP:BLANKING says the following may not be removed by a user from their own Talk page: "Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions currently in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry related notices, and any other notice regarding an active sanction." Does the phrase "any other notice regarding an active sanction" include an active block notice?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

      I would think so. If we wanted to allow removal of active block notices, I think we would need to make a specific exclusion. Ryan Vesey 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      I recall this question being raised some months ago. I think consensus was in favour of prohibiting removal of active block notices, but I'll look for the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      Here is the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      Thanks much, Lothar, very helpful. I can now see in the edit history where the phrase "any other notice ..." was added. FWIW, the sentence should be reworded in my view as the added phrase encompasses the first phrase. It was that redundancy that gave me pause.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      How does that work with normal talk page archiving? Obviously you can't create a talk page archive if you're currently blocked, but people with active Arbcom topic bans who aren't blocked are able to archive their talk pages. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      It's unnecessary. Checking user's contributions clearly shows active blocks, no need to force editors to maintain a badge of shame on their talk pages. Nobody Ent 00:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Why not? People don't generally go to the contributions page to find out about an editor, they go to the talk page first. A block may or may not be a "badge of shame", it all depends on the circumstances, and the talk page can provide a lot of additional information which can help put the block in context. The block log has no context, just the naked facts - and strictly from the admin's point of view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Am I correct that any comments related to the block but not in a template can be removed? Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Excluding the block notice if it wasn't given in template form. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      That's my understanding -- only the block notice itself cannot be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      In my case, the user blanked the entire Talk page. I restored ONLY the current block notice. I haven't seen an answer to Nyttend's question. I also agree that current block notices should not be removable. Checking the log isn't an easy matter for most users, and I don't see why we should have to. It only has to stay in place while it's active.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      How do you know what people do? All I know is what I do -- user or talk page then immediately bounce to user contributions. Look at page of last contributions (what have they been up to?), then go to earliest (see how old account is) and then down to the toolserver edit count (total number and distribution). That's all real data.
      If an editor is blocked I don't understand why vultures editors need to be circling around their talk page -- they can't do any harm to the encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 19:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Nobody Ent is 100% correct about how it should be, but as I recall there was no clear consensus on this issue the last time it was discussed. I know that for blocks that I make, I don't care if the user blanks the block notice, and if some Rulz Enforcer comes in and replaces it, I'll revert them. For cases like this where there's no consensus, I guess deferring to the blocking admin seems a reasonable compromise (even when, if they disagree with me, they're wrong). --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Paul Ryan

      If past experience bears out (and this CNN article can attest to) we're likely going to see a lot of activity on Paul Ryan's wikipedia page over the next 24 hours. There is already some edits/reverts being made dealing with the rumors that Mitt Romney is going to name him VP tomorrow. Still just a rumor and nothing is getting out of hand, yet, but this may be a page that a few admins will want to put on their watchlist real soon. Agne/ 04:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      In addition, there are claims that Stephen Colbert has asked his viewers to vandalize articles on Romney and his VP candidates. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Not claims, it actually happened. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Request for review from uninvolved editor

      Hi, I have been accused of edit warring on a controversial article Liancourt Rocks and so I would like a review by an editor that has had no previous involvement with this article or any related article. I have removed text from this article which claims administration of the islets by South Korea as none of the sources given actually state this. My reverts are based on Misplaced Pages guidelines, however I will not make any further edits to prevent an edit war. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      It's a valid warning -- at a minimum, you should be explaining your reasoning at Talk:Liancourt_Rocks Nobody Ent 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      I'm not disputing the warning. I'm asking for a review of the edits I've made and I've just added a section on the talk page. Clover345 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Divineabraham

      Divineabraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

      Divineabraham is requesting the removal of his present indefinite block, which was levied a year and five days ago after an SPI. The user seems to have socked more after the block; he last posted an unblock request in January, after the most recent discovery of a sock, but was given WP:OFFER and told to wait six months. After not editing for more than six months, he just now posted a request for unblock:

      I believe that I deserve to be unblocked, its been more than 6 months. I think I have gained some maturity as well.

      I declined the request procedurally, since I don't think that this type of block should be removed unilaterally, but I promised him I'd submit his request to the community. I am neutral on this specific situation. Please offer your input so that we can have a solid consensus on this user's future. Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

      Generally commensurate with an SO response, I expect the user to explain what they did wrong that got them blocked in the first place, what the intend to do differently, and what areas of Misplaced Pages they intend to contribute to. Saying "I've waited and now I'm not going to be bad" isn't usually enough. If he can make it clear that he knows why what he did was wrong, and can explain why Misplaced Pages needs him around, that would go a long way towards gaining my support for an unblock. --Jayron32 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      I wonder about the vague assertion: "I think I have gained some maturity". There should be a greater certainty expressed that maturity has increased, what the previous bad behavior was, and that the behavior will not be repeated. Binksternet (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      By the way, Divineabraham produced several unblock requests between August 2011 and January 2012; you may want to read them to understand his thinking more fully. I've invited him to participate by using the {{helpme}} template, so it's possible that he'll respond to what you say here. Nyttend (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      Unarchived, since this probably should get more discussion. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Generally, lack of discussion = lack of community interest in unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      I virtually never participate in these things, and to me it seemed right to get someone to close it, among other things. Nyttend (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      They've repeatedly been told to review WP:OFFER, I don't see any indication they have done so. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Limited unban request for Peter Damian

      Background

      Request by Volunteer Marek

      Over at Wikipediocracy the topic of the Core Contest has recently been raised (in a positive manner). User:Peter Damian, who has been banned on Misplaced Pages, but who is a specialist in the field of late 13th century philosophy indicated that he would be interested in massively improving the Duns Scotus article for the contest. Duns Scotus is one of the top three medieval Philosophers, along with Aquinas and Ockham so the article definitely falls within the purview of the Core Contest.

      It is my understanding that Peter was originally blocked for some mutually problematic interactions with another particular, single, user. Notably, AFAIK there has never been any question as to the quality and integrity of his content related edits in the Philosophy area, and importantly for this request, the “other user” involved in past conflicts with Peter has never edited or shown an interest in that particular article.

      Hence, I would like to propose that Peter Damian is provisionally unblocked for the sole purpose of improving the Duns Scotus article. Effectively Peter would be “topic banned from all of Misplaced Pages EXCEPT the Duns Scotus article and its talk page” (and also his own talk page, since I think he’s not blocked from that either). He would work on improving the Duns Scotus article, hopefully get it up to GA or FA status, and then submit it to Core for review. If he does edit anything but the Duns Scotus article and its talk page, his block can be reinstated.

      If all goes well, this would be an opportunity for Peter to show that he is capable of non-controversial participation in Misplaced Pages and after the contest ends we could have another discussion about whether the ban could be relaxed further. VolunteerMarek 16:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      I think something worth noting is that the history of his talk page notes that if he wants his talk page unprotected and/or wants to be unbanned, that he contact ArbCom. I don't a simple relaxing here would be appropriate without contact with them first. Regards, — Moe ε 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      I'm not sure I understand the (very quick) closure of the request here - Peter Damian wasn't banned by the ArbCom but at AN/I. Hence, it is within the scope of the community decision whether to allow this or not.VolunteerMarek 17:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Looking at the history here it seems the last unblock discussion took place at WP:AN, which is probably where this request should go, right? VolunteerMarek 17:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Unarchived; while Peter Damian was under arbcom sanction the ban was a community ban by ANI discussion. The community is per policy allowed to unban those it bans (arbcom is another appeal point, but we can undo anything we can do). Unarchived on this procedural basis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Thanks. Should it stay here or be taken to WP:AN? VolunteerMarek 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Formally AN, but we've allowed discussions starting here to stay here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      Dude, chill out. He's not "disrupting Misplaced Pages to win a contest". He's trying to improve an important article. If it makes you feel better, we could just say that if he does somehow win the Core Contest, his winnings (which I think are like 20 bucks or something) will be donated to Wikimedia foundation.VolunteerMarek 20:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      He's not? His article choice was rejected in part as it wasn't a tier 4 article, to which he promptly quit promising "mainstream press" about Misplaced Pages article quality, then reverted his edits to the article he intended to help by reinserting misinformation. What part of that is helpful? Regards, — Moe ε 20:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      It was not "rejected" (I think it's hard to get an entry "rejected" from that contest) - someone just pointed out it wasn't on the Tier 4 list. The subsequent discussion on the talk clearly indicates that people think the article is certainly significant.VolunteerMarek 01:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Let me rephrase, then. Peter felt it was rejected based on a judges opinion, to which he quit and then redacted all his edits to the article. Regards, — Moe ε 01:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      That's unfortunate, but also easily correctable. This is a Wiki and editable. Why not try to talk to the guy. He obviously wants to play on the Wiki but is also pissed off at the shunning. Don't make it all some all or nothing, decide it now, drama. Give the man a chance and try to make it work.TCO (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      and his capabilities make him too dangerous to fool around with - what, he shoots lasers from his eyes? VolunteerMarek 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Support for a valuable contributor, provided Peter drops any vengeful agenda he may have against various editors and administrators. I've seen a lot worse than Peter get second chances...Modernist (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Strong oppose for two reasons: 1) per The Bushranger - Peter has a long record of causing problems, and appears to be clearly acting in bad faith 2) if Peter wants his ban lifted, he needs to apply for it himself, and make appropriate commitments himself as part of this. VM doesn't state that he's acting as Peter's proxy in this matter, and even if he was this would be unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      I linked to the Wikipediocracy discussion above, which should be sufficient. And I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be "unacceptable" here (did you mean "even if he was not"?) VolunteerMarek 01:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      If he wants to be blocked, he can make a genuine request by emailing ArbCom per the usual arrangements for banned editors whose talk page has been turned off. His posts on Wikipediocracy makes no meaningful commitments to stick to a single article or behave in an acceptable fashion, and it appears that this is entirely about proving some kind of point about how foolish Misplaced Pages is by not letting him contribute. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • unban. Yeah, the dude is not perfect, but who is. This ban crap is much more about some sort of social forum shunning game than really defending the editorial content process at Wiki. Makes me sick. Let the guy in.TCO (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oppose Peter Damian does not appear to understand why he is banned, and says at Wikipediocracy, "It would be newsworthy if I were blocked for trying to improve the Misplaced Pages article on Scotus." While it is unfortunate that the Scotus article has been neglected, I can forsee conflict. TFD (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oppose First, we should be considering the interests of the encyclopedia; it is obvious from this individual's statements elsewhere, that the interests of the encyclopedia are not why he wants to edit the article in question. Second, banned really does mean banned, and creating extra sockpuppets to get round a ban, does not result in the lifting of that ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Support, Hell, full-unban him and welcome him to the Re-Established Editors Association. PD's a sharp guy and will do good work. Remember? Project. Build Encyclopaedia. Anyone Canz Edit. I've seen a lot worse than 'Peter' editing without restriction. And nobody go and block him; ya might piss him off (oh, right, that would be the intent). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
        nb: Article needs attention from an expert on the subject.
      • Oppose, I was ready to support this, but revelations that he's still socking despite a ban scotched that. If he's not willing to follow the "don't edit when banned" rule, what other rules is he not willing to follow? Lankiveil 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

      Possible sock

      Well, I just found this: Quisquiliae (talk · contribs) Sporadic edits between 2010 to now, including edits to talk page of Jimbo. Peter Damian writes on Wikipediocracy on August 9: "I'm thinking about entering on behalf of the beleaguered article on Duns Scotus (T-H-L). Not actually listed as vital, but current academic view is that Scotus ranks in the top three medieval philosophers (together with Ockham and Aquinas) in terms of notability, and probably is in the first position, so it should be there." The same day on August 9, Quisquiliae returns to editing and writes in User:Quisquiliae/sandbox: "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy both agree that Scotus is up there with Aquinas and Ockham as the three most important philosophers of the High Scholastic period (c. 1200-1350)." and then proceeds to make sweeping changes to the Duns Scotus article mentioned, entering it on Misplaced Pages:The Core Contest/Entries for the above mentioned contest. He also messaged Casliber , another participant in the Wikipediocracy thread, about editing the Scotus article. WP:DUCK seems to be quacking with this one. Regards, — Moe ε 16:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Sock confirmed, User:Quisquiliae is banned editor User:Peter Damian posting on Wikipediocracy "Oh well Scotus has been disallowed " and "So this towering giant of the Western intellectual tradition is not allowed on a list that includes Bing Crosby" in reply to his message as Quisquiliae. Any administrator willing to block this sockpuppet of Peter's for evading his ban? Regards, — Moe ε 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Might be best to lay out the previous discussions (has no-one linked to them yet?) So we have a community ban discussion here from this enforcement request from this discussion. There will be more. I do think it needs to be considered with all the background on the table. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Been thinking about this as this has been discussed by the arbitration committee at some point (can't remember exactly when and I need to refresh my memory). It is worth noting that many of the discussers of the community ban are no longer actively editing, and this issue could be considered as deriving from an arbitration process. Furthermore I think some history needs to be absorbed by folks considering this. My initial question would be whether the community wants further discussion to be by the committee or by the community. So that'd be a good question to sort out first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      • I tend to think that ArbCom need to be involved at some level, since that was the root of the issue, and there seems to be a bit more than meets the eye going on. If he was socking (which has not been "confirmed" as far as I can tell, at least per the standards at WP:SPI/CU) that would complicate matters. I don't have an opinion on the unbanning although I'm obviously for bringing back highly skilled (but policy respecting) editors, but I think it does need more than a day's worth of chat at WP:AN. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Manning

      Editors working together on Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

      The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Hello I believe my edit is correct because it doesn't say Bradley Manning leaked the info it just states that there was a leak which is not in question and User:Srich32977 thinks that his belong I have no malice towards him I just don't want edit war.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Never mind discussion opened on the talk page. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

      This is a content dispute and best dealt with on Talk:Bradley Manning where Srich attempted to start a discussion with you earlier but you have either missed or ignored and reverted him anyway. None of this merits an ANI over and I'd watch that you don't shoot yourself in the foot with an edit-war claim. Have you notified him of this thread?
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      I applaud your self-revert as moving in the right direction.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I didn't notice the discussion until just now I am making no claim against him of edit warring and I even revert my edit until such time as the discussion is complete with a consensus.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Unban request of User: Shakinglord

      As per a discussion on User: Muzemike's talk page, I publicly reveal that I, User: Penguin 236, am actually a sockpuppet account for User: Shakinglord. I am very sorry to any editors disturbed by this fact. I have come to AN to request my unban. I believe that I am a substantial editor, my goal is not to disrupt Misplaced Pages at all. I come wanting to improve Misplaced Pages, like each and every good editor here. I merely made one fatal mistake, and that ruined my career editing Misplaced Pages. I would like to clarify the matter of my socking, a matter that is seen as "strange" to my blockers. I admit that my first socks were bad. I was both depressed and paranoid and I wanted to arrange a test as to whether people cared about me on Misplaced Pages if someone ranted about me. I was blocked, and the rest are simply just the spawn of panic, out of a sort of need to edit and improve Misplaced Pages. I know that banned editors are not supposed to request their own unbans, but please, hear me out on this one. I firmly believe that I can make decent edits to Misplaced Pages. I do NOT want to return to Negapedia. I feel that I can better improve Misplaced Pages here. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

      In the discussion at his talk, Muzemike refers to checkuser data (he's a CU) connecting Penguin with Shakinglord, so we can take it that Penguin is telling the truth and not trolling by pretending to be someone else. No opinion on the unban request. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      CheckUser wasn't even necessary. All one had to do was make the connection with his old account here. --MuZemike 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Ah, okay; I happened on this by accident and assumed that you connected the two with CU. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

      Just out of morbid curiosity, what is actually true about who you say you are on your user page?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

      If you mean the user boxes, those are my real views and hobbies. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      I am deeply sorry for that, I was simply fearful. My intentions are good. I do have to admit, my socks are not. I am simply trying to say that a clean slate will alleviate the problem. That is all I want. Then, I will acknowledge that my previous transgressions are bad and I will never sock again. Isn't this what WP: ROPE is for? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Fact of the matter is that you still tried to deceive us again. If you were truly, keyword, truly deeply sorry for your actions, then you shouldn't have tried to pull off the same stunts as last time. You blew the previous chance you gave yourself with, threatening legal action and trolling. Let's not forget this which is essentially the same as this situation. Elockid 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      That, again, was a mistake. I was simply freaked out that I may not be able to help Misplaced Pages. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oppose There is a a correct way to request to be unbanned, but he choose to use a sock instead so I don't see how we can trust that he will not disrupt Misplaced Pages again.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Let us examine the possibilities. If I am unbanned, why would I further sock or disrupt Misplaced Pages? What do you have to lose by unbanning me? I am a good editor, had I not posted that I am Shakinglord, you would have not thought of me as problematic. True, this has turned into a bit of a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf, but I simply could not keep living a lie. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Please, I implore you, let us forget those horrible, foolish mistakes. Those were awful, yes, but there is no need to dwell on them. I can do good, and you know it. Please, if we leave my past mistakes, I promise that there will be no more sockpuppetry, lying, or disruption of any kind. And, on the first sign of disruption, you can block me forever. Also, if I am unbanned, I promise to stay off ANI and AN unless the discussion directly concerns me. You really have nothing to lose. Quoting ABBA, take a chance on me. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Nice try with the popculture quoting and flowery appeals at forgiveness. I don't think that's gonna change the attitude of people towards you given what you've done. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment - I find myself somewhat annoyed that I spent the better part of an hour last night attempting to assist you with determining the nature of your block and with how to request an unblock, only to find that you knew perfectly well why you were blocked all along. I did start to smell "something" along the way, and I even strongly suggested that you grok the implications of the attention you were about to bring upon yourself. Although it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the outcome of this discussion, I don't know if you realize that your actions have (among other things) resulted in a complete block of an entire school from editing on Misplaced Pages. That kind of impact is FAR more detrimental to this project than pretty much anything that you did as an editor. I don't have an opinion as to whether or not your ban should be lifted, that will be for others to determine. I do have an opinion that your actions in the past have been severely detrimental to the project and create a high bar to overcome. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oppose This editor could have created a new persona and tried to quietly edit and help the project without fanfare. Instead, he has been prominent in recent discussions on ANI, calling for blocks and bans on other editors. This is a strong indication that his motivations are far from clear, that his intent is not necessarily to improve the encyclopedia, and that he cannot be trusted. Follow the Standard Offer and come back when you have done so, to ask again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Leaning towards Hell no and block the sock until the discussion is finished. --Onorem♠Dil 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Oppose - It's a good thing Penguin owned up as a Shakinglord sock, but that doesn't excuse a circumvention of a block on sockmaster. I agree with BMK and TD's votes. After screwing up with all those edits, to trust this sockmeister again is an issue of concern to the project. Rebuilding a reputation via the original account and not socking ever again seems to be too steep a road for this guy...what's Negapedia anyway, some Newspeak-version of WP?--Eaglestorm (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Ekabhishek

      Don't know if I am right or wrong, but I think this needs to be clarified. I am stating it in good faith.

      • Looking at the support section of above WP:RFA, I can figure out that it has a devoting effect of regionalism. As, the candidate is from India. Major supporters are also from India, who are supporting with a formal rational.(i.e. Voting in the RFA after long time, or more perfectly voting for the first time) I think these activity could change the results of RFA and also the consensus. Possibly, I could be wrong about this perspective. but, It is the thing that needs to be clarified. GiantBluePanda (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      I think that this best belongs at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Categories: