Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Y256 (talk | contribs)
1,482 edits
Line 322: Line 322:
::What's controversial about it? It's tanking keep. It was when I attempted closure, it still is now. The revert was only made on the basis that they believe it's not a SNOW case, it had nothing to do with the fact I failed to sign it or anything else as far they were concerned. Do you see [[WP:IAR|something to gain for Wikipedia]] by letting the article be tagged for a further 5 days? Bearing in mind it's one click away from a number of links exposed to the masses via the Main Page both right now, and in a short time too. [[User:HeCameFromTheShadows|HeCameFromTheShadows]] ([[User talk:HeCameFromTheShadows|talk]]) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
::What's controversial about it? It's tanking keep. It was when I attempted closure, it still is now. The revert was only made on the basis that they believe it's not a SNOW case, it had nothing to do with the fact I failed to sign it or anything else as far they were concerned. Do you see [[WP:IAR|something to gain for Wikipedia]] by letting the article be tagged for a further 5 days? Bearing in mind it's one click away from a number of links exposed to the masses via the Main Page both right now, and in a short time too. [[User:HeCameFromTheShadows|HeCameFromTheShadows]] ([[User talk:HeCameFromTheShadows|talk]]) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:::From the definition of controversial: ''Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.'' Several editors !voted delete in that AfD, so there clearly is disagreement (controversy) in the AfD. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
:::From the definition of controversial: ''Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.'' Several editors !voted delete in that AfD, so there clearly is disagreement (controversy) in the AfD. [[User:VQuakr|VQuakr]] ([[User talk:VQuakr|talk]]) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
::::But the argument now is that a keep consensus has been established ''after'' the initial snow close. It might have been too early then but is sure as hell (mind the pan) justified now. [[User:Yaniv256|&rarr;Yaniv256]]<sup> [[User_talk:Yaniv256|talk]]</sup><sub> [[Special:Contributions/Yaniv256|contribs]]</sub> 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


HeCameFromTheShadows, please tell us who you are a [[WP:EVADE|block-evading]] [[WP:SOCK|sock puppet]] of. --[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
HeCameFromTheShadows, please tell us who you are a [[WP:EVADE|block-evading]] [[WP:SOCK|sock puppet]] of. --[[User talk:MuZemike|MuZemike]] 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:19, 12 August 2012





    

    

    
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)

    


     
    Template:Active editnotice
    

    "WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Content removal and WP:Criteria for redaction.
    

    "WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.
    

    

      

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


      


      Shortcuts
      

      Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

      

       
      Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

      Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

      

       
      Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

      On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

      There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

      

       
      When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

      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
      

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

      Requests for comment
      

      Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues
      

      (Initiated 124 days ago on 3 June 2024)
Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline
      

      (Initiated 56 days ago on 9 August 2024)

      Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG.  The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain
      

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 17 August 2024) 
Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      


      Talk:JD Vance#RFC: Include "couch" hoax paragraph
      

      (Initiated 23 days ago on 11 September 2024) 

      This will require a close by an editor experienced on WP:BLP polices. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

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

      Deletion discussions
      


      
XFD backlog


      
V

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Total

      

      
CfD

0

3

14

0

17

      

      
TfD

0

1

11

0

12

      

      
MfD

0

1

8

0

9

      

      
FfD

0

1

3

0

4

      

      
RfD

0

0

112

0

112

      

      
AfD

0

0

2

0

2

      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19#Category:Wikipedia utility templates
      

      (Initiated 55 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24#Endings by year
      

      (Initiated 42 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Done by Queen of Hearts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 30#Category:1501 establishments in Venezuela
      

      (Initiated 36 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3#Category:Prejudice and discrimination in fiction
      

      (Initiated 35 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 25#Category:Elite 11 participants
      

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 9 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 22#National shores of the United States
      

      (Initiated 12 days ago on 22 September 2024) There are a bunch of these on this day's log; I'll only list the one but help closing 'em all would be appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Done by Queen of Hearts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 25#Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues
      

      (Initiated 9 days ago on 25 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Done by Star Mississippi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 26#Category:Inductees of the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame
      

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 26 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Done by Star Mississippi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe of Sovereign Nations (party)
      

      (Initiated 21 days ago on 13 September 2024) Braganza (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Done by Liz, on 23:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 24#Category:14th-century German LGBT people
      

      (Initiated 10 days ago on 24 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

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

      Other types of closing requests
      

      Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
      

      (Initiated 130 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

       Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk)  16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk)  07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

       @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month.  Might be best for someone else to close.  --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation
      

      (Initiated 118 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Requested_move_15_June_2024
      

      (Initiated 112 days ago on 15 June 2024) open for 3+ months. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal
      

      (Initiated 89 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Petah_Tikva#Merge_proposal
      

      (Initiated 58 days ago on 8 August 2024) - This has been open and the discussion is at a standstill. While the proposer requested to keep it open, I don't think that it's proper. Another can be opened at another time, but at this point, if someone wouldn't mind closing it, I think that would be helpful to move on. Andre🚐 01:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk: Hurricane Isabel#Proposed merging of Effects of Hurricane Isabel in New York and New England, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania into Hurricane Isabel
      

      (Initiated 54 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 13 August 2024
      

      (Initiated 53 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Imane Khelif#Proposal to create and split off new article "2024 Olympic Boxing Controversy"
      

      (Initiated 49 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days.  TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Dodola_and_Perperuna#Requested_move_22_August_2024
      

      (Initiated 43 days ago on 22 August 2024) open for more than 1 month. Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climbing#Suggesting_a_change_of_WP:WikiProject_Climbing/Article_recommendations
      

      (Initiated 40 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)#Merge Proposal
      

      (Initiated 29 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond#Proposed merge of Loch Lomond (Runrig song) into The Bonnie Banks o' Loch Lomond
      

      (Initiated 28 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022#Merge proposal
      

      (Initiated 20 days ago on 15 September 2024) – Closed by involved editor under unclear consensus, reopened by a likely sockpuppet account. Discussion has died down and I want an uninvolved closer to get this over and done with. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_15_September_2024
      

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 15 September 2024)
Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Talk:2024_Lebanon_pager_explosions#Requested_move_19_September_2024
      

      (Initiated 15 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      

      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 Wikipedia. There has been little participation so far, making consensus-building difficult. See this section. NTox · talk 21:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]

      

      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 (Talk) 11:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      


      Have re-removed, and will block if it's added a third time. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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 (Talk) 13:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]
      

      

      

      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)[reply]

      

       Done. 28bytes (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      I had already asked the blocking admin to take a look. Thanks for doing it. --DBigXray 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]
      

      Here is the discussion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Excluding the block notice if it wasn't given in template form. Ryan Vesey 04:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      That's my understanding -- only the block notice itself cannot be removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]
      

      • 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)[reply]
      

      

      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. AgneCheese/Wine 04:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]

      Not claims, it actually happened. [4] --MASEM (t) 05:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      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 Wikipedia guidelines, however I will not make any further edits to prevent an edit war. Thanks. Clover345 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]

      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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia needs him around, that would go a long way towards gaining my support for an unblock.  --Jayron32 20:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      Unarchived, since this probably should get more discussion.  Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Generally, lack of discussion = lack of community interest in unblocking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]
      

      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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]
      


      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      

      Thanks. Should it stay here or be taken to WP:AN? VolunteerMarek 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      Formally AN, but we've allowed discussions starting here to stay here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      Dude, chill out. He's not "disrupting Wikipedia 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)[reply]

      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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]
      


      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)[reply]

      He's way more dangerous than that. Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • 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)[reply]
        • 

      • 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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]

      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 Wikipedia is by not letting him contribute. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      •  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)[reply]
        • 

      • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
      

      • 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)[reply]
      

      • 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)[reply]
      

         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 (speak to me) 02:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
      



      because in this case his gain is also wikipedias gain.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I've no opinion about this particular editor's history or merits, but on general principles, oppose unban of any banned editors who are actively socking (as per the section below).  Sandstein  14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Perhaps Peter could rewrite the Scotus article in wiki format and post it, cc-by-sa, somewhere off Wikipedia (Wikipediocracy?). If it's an improvement, an editor in good standing may replace the existing article with it, or parts of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Comment - As a pro-WP active Wikipedian who also posts with some regularity at Wikipediocracy, I just want to share a couple thoughts for what they are worth. There are a range of anti-WP folk who post there who range from frustrated barred editors to out-and-out jihadists seeking the day in which they can dance on the grave of a completely annihilated Wikipedia. Do not act presumptively and treat them all like the latter, it only fuels the hatred. Strive for both calmness and rationality in decision-making. Even if the answer is "no thank you," make sure to do the legwork to provide a rational basis for that opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      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 Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries for the above mentioned contest. He also messaged Casliber [5], 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)[reply]

      Sock confirmed, User:Quisquiliae is banned editor User:Peter Damian posting on Wikipediocracy "Oh well Scotus has been disallowed [6]" 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)[reply]

      


      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      


      Message from Quisquiliae
      

      He left a final response here. To some extent, I agree with him. SilverserenC 11:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Why was he banned?
      

      
Further reading for Ruud Koot and others


      



      

      Could someone give an executive summary of why he was banned? (But a somewhat longer summary than him being a nuisance). I remember trying to figure this out after I came across a note by a valued colleague who stated he left WP because, among other things, the "situation with Peter Damian," but soon gave up after having to follow a whole mess of linked discussions. I wasn't even able to figure out whether he left because PD was banned or because he wasn't banned soon enough. The discussions Casliber mentioned above also seem to be from after the situation had apparently escalated. —Ruud 19:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      • He was banned several times for a variety of reasons; however enough time has passed - he has a clear capacity to create high quality content - and the time has come to give him another shot at editing with perhaps a few provisos from arbcom. That seems fair given the recent return of a couple of problematic editors who are now making significant and positive contributions again, (thorny persona and all)...Modernist (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • The problem here of course is that history is repeating itself.  See archive 214 of this very noticeboard.  What happened there is what's happened here:  An unban is requested by a third party.  People discover that sockpuppetry to evade the ban was ongoing at the time.  They object because of that.  Peter Damian withdraws the request.  It happened there.  It's just happened here.  History has repeated itself more than once on this, and not only when it comes to the unban requests.  Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • No.  No-one can do that.  There is, at this point, some six years of history here.  Peter Damian's first edit using an account was in June 2003 and things went bad in 2006.  The six years since cannot be boiled down into a short "executive summary".  The history here includes a whole lot of things including (a) the Wikipedia-promotes-paedophilia dispute, (b) Peter Damian's interations with other editors, (c) a ban by Jimbo, (d) the whole FT2 incident including accusations levelled at FT2 and legal threats, (e) the Foundation-l mailing list ban, (f) the current Ash/Fae incident, (g) currently ongoing disputes over images at Commons, (h) currently ongoing disputes with Wikimedia UK, (i) breaching experiments (reported by SlimVirgin in 2010), and (j) the off-wiki "destroy Wikipedia" incident.  With the best will in the world, Ruud Koot, the only answer here is to do the reading.  Uncle G (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Manning
      

      

      

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

      

      

      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)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]

      I applaud your self-revert as moving in the right direction.
       — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      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 Wikipedia at all. I come wanting to improve Wikipedia, like each and every good editor here. I merely made one fatal mistake, and that ruined my career editing Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. I do NOT want to return to Negapedia. I feel that I can better improve Wikipedia here. Robby The Penguin  (talk)  (contribs) 01:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      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)[reply]

      

      If you mean the user boxes, those are my real views and hobbies. Robby The Penguin  (talk)  (contribs) 02:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      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)[reply]
      

      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   (Talk) 04:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      That, again, was a mistake. I was simply freaked out that I may not be able to help Wikipedia. Robby The Penguin  (talk)  (contribs) 02:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      Let us examine the possibilities. If I am unbanned, why would I further sock or disrupt Wikipedia? 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)[reply]

      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)[reply]

      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)[reply]
      

      • 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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
        • 

      • 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)[reply]
        • 

      • Leaning towards Hell no and block the sock until the discussion is finished. --Onorem♠Dil 04:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • 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)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose and block the sock  When an editor is blocked (especially one with the history of Shakinglord), we occasionally grant them WP:OFFER.  When that happens, and someone does unblock as per WP:OFFER, that is the WP:ROPE.  One may not simply seize a rope of their own, using their own rules, and of their own accord.  Evading a block is evading a block, period. dangerouspanda 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose. We had this public appeal at 01:56, 12 August 2012, yet at 00:10, 12 August 2012 Penguin had still been lying about it and would clearly not have come clean if not caught. A period of honesty of just 106 minutes between the last lies and the unban appeal is nowhere near enough to convince me of good faith - I'd recommend a minimum six months of no socking and no lies, as per WP:OFFER, and block this latest sock at the conclusion of this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose - there are channels to go through and socking is not one of them. Yes Robby/Penguin revealing himself is a good sign, but let's not forget it was only inevitable before it MuZemike or somebody CUed him. GiantSnowman 10:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose - Blocks prevent disruption. Bans formalize block-on-site of long-term disruptive editors who have exhausted community patience. This editor has again demonstrated that he is not willing to comply with site policies but instead to disrupt and waste many others' time. Therefore I see nothing to gain with unbanning an editor who causes us to waste more time and refuses to obey policies. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Oppose. Shakinglord's final contribution to his account on November 21, 2011: "I formally retire. I ask that no one disturbs my userpage, in memory of me. Farewell, perhaps we will meet again someday." Prophetic but too often true of a sock. On April 24, 2012, SL created the Onepier account. On June 3, 2012, when the Penguin account was created, SL said on this board: "Not a big thing. I am simply retiring my current account and starting a new one, simply because I hate my current username. Just didn't want any administrators thinking I was socking, so i'm announcing it here." ([7]).
      

      Since being here in his new guise as Robby, SL has trotted around like a self-important puppy, spending most of his time here and at ANI, making pronouncements on all sorts of things as if he is already an administrator with 10 years of experience. When told by many that he should spend his time elsewhere ([8] & [9]), he ignores the advice and continues to do what he likes best, game-playing drama. I actually think he doesn't necessarily care whether he's doing "good" or "bad" as long as he's entertained. He's a precocious, emotionally immature boy (I'm assuming he's really 15) who has no boundaries in his behavior. He states above that at the "first sign of disruption, you can block me forever." I submit that his responses here are just as disruptive as the rest of his conduct and we should accede to his request. His contrition is absolutely hollow, and he has exhausted this community's good will.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      Wikipedia: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)[reply]
      

      I think that this best belongs at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      At least say few words about it. GiantBluePanda (talk) 10:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      As long as nobody is engaging in canvassing or sockpuppeting the votes are perfectly valid. I trust that the bureaucrats can distinguish between "Support - He's Indian", and "Support - <other reason>". (Disclaimer: I supported Ekabhishek.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • But, It could be non-wiki canvassing. (Please I am not assuming bad faith) You can easily figure out that half of Indian users have voted in support, while they have rarely voted to any RFA in past. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • Yes, please ban editors from WP:INDIA from participating in any RfA related to members. It's a simple solution really. —SpacemanSpiff 12:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

          • I'm not sure why you think this is an issue. Obviously editors monitoring the talk page of the candidate and/or the various nominators would know about the RfA and would be motivated to !vote in it. If this brings more editors into the RfA process, that's a good thing. And, should we really be monitoring ethnicity of editors? --regentspark (comment) 12:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • 

          • Wow, please say you were being factious with that comment, I literally choked on my coffee when I read that.  I find that patently offensive to even suggest (joke or not), and certainly a violation of policy and common sense. I can confidently say that we will NOT be monitoring the ethnicity of voters, and not barring good faith votes based on any Project the participants belong to.  That is a strike-worthy comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 12:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        • 

      • I have to say this all seems in bad taste to me - if someone works extensively in India-related areas, they will be well known to other people working in India-related areas, who will be more likely to !vote in an RfA than people who don't know the candidate - and (surprise, surprise) a lot of those will be Indian! Although a candidate's ethnicity does not play a part in my decisions, I am pleased when I see good candidates from other parts of the world than the Western/American/British culture that forms the great majority - it's the best (and probably the only) way to address the systemic bias that is unavoidable in a project dominated by one culture/ethnicity. What matters here is whether Ekabhishek will make a good admin, and people's !votes should be assessed on their actual words, not on their ethnicity. (Mind you, did you see the number of Americans who supported Dennis, and Brits who supported me? What a disgrace!) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      

      User:GiantBluePanda
      

      Furthermore, GiantBluePanda (talk · contribs) appears to be some sort of troll intent on disrupting RFA, RefDesk, and Bwilkins (talk · contribs). See especially these edits: [10] (he claims to be a cleanstart account; he should know this), disruptive question, disruptive question, disruptive user talk post, disruptive question, questions BWilkins's autochecked alt account, CU violates privacy policy, nominating people for adminship [11] [12], desysop Bwilkins #1 & #2, and more in his edit history. This is in addition to the initial CU misfire (visible on his user talk page, which he currently has at MFD) and bumping into checkuser blocks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      I held myself back from using the word "troll" to describe GBP more than once. Their unhealthy fascination with me (on both of my accounts) indeed has raised some concerns. Unrelated to that, I actually believe the original block on them was correct, based on WP:DUCK alone. Clearly, they have been around awhile - whether it's a valid cleanstart or a block-evasion, someone else can find out. Overall, they're a pain on the project so far - an unfortunate net-negative based on their entire editing pattern - not including the surreal attention I have garnered from them dangerouspanda 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      I don't have intention of disrupting the project.If I had, I wouldn't have asked advice from you.My problem is, I am trying to adjust my self returning after 1 year. GiantBluePanda (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      I've seen talk of getting checkuser input, but what exactly is it that you want us to do? --(ʞɿɐʇ)  ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

        • The user started their career with a checkuser block, which was then reversed due to a possibility of it being in error.  I was wanting a second review, per contribs.  Since Coren has received an email from the user and knows the circumstances best, I was thinking he would be the best to re-review. The contribs here are quite arguably trollish and Coren might be able to shine some light on the situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • I have very little confidence that this editor is legitimate.  The user contacted me after my original block giving a plausible explanation and naming an account as his past account after a clean start.  His story was just coherent enough to give an AGF unblock – and no more.  There are a number of other indicators of trouble and connected accounts that make the situation smelly enough that I had discussed the case (after my unblock) with the other functionaries in case someone recognized a long-term abuse pattern.  While nothing concrete popped up, it's not clear how reasonable continued good faith remains reasonable at this point.  — Coren (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • 

      • Blocked - Based on the evidence here, including the opinions of ES&L, Reaper, myself and Coren, I have reinstated the original indef block.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 15:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Agree with the block, unfortunately ... but expect a loud whine in 3...2...1...  dangerouspanda 15:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      And he requests an unblock, while not logged in, and geolocating in the exact same geolocation and ISP as previous socks, thus further proving the sock issue.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  ©  Join WER 15:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Removal of topic ban
      

      I, User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) am under a temporary ban from starting new articles until I go through past entries to look for copyrighted material that are too long for fair use. I have been through my archive and reworded passages that were too close to the source material or that were cut and pasted that were too long to be considered fair use. I am hoping the ban can be lifted so I can create new content. Hundreds of entries from the Library of Congress collaboration have not been added because of the ban. I am much more careful so that I do not add copyrighted content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      


      


      Bans aren't supposed to be permanent punishment but are to be used to curb active bad behaviour. If I have gone through my material as requested, what then is the purpose of the topic ban? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      • Oppose No thank you. - En Wikipedia has plenty of rubbish content without your cut and copy paste creations of low note subjects - better if you go and  improve those that are already created and ignored by editors.Youreallycan 16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Can you point out a "low note subject" that I copy and pasted? If a subject doesn't meet GNG it would have been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      You are the creator of a massive amount of articles, yes? - they mostly will be of low note - that is just a basic fact - all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes?- you have been copy pasting content to the En Wikipedia project , yes? - so ... Youreallycan 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      Can you point out at least one "low note subject" that I copy and pasted, instead of using the false logic you use above? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      


      RM backlog escape
      

      The editors on 2007–2012 global financial crisis have an RM that is stuck in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Backlog limbo for almost a week. The page is kind of a high profile one so some favoritism seems in order. I'm posting this request here following a referal from the teahouse. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 18:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
      

      Can somoeone put this debate out of its misery? I attempted WP:SNOW closure a while ago but someone reverted, and since then it's only garnere even more keeps, with 5 days still left to run. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      With 24 edits (currently), you attempted a non-admin closure of a controversial AfD without marking it as a non-administrative closure and without even signing your, uh, decision. And someone reverted you? Gee, what a shock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      What's controversial about it? It's tanking keep. It was when I attempted closure, it still is now. The revert was only made on the basis that they believe it's not a SNOW case, it had nothing to do with the fact I failed to sign it or anything else as far they were concerned. Do you see something to gain for Wikipedia by letting the article be tagged for a further 5 days? Bearing in mind it's one click away from a number of links exposed to the masses via the Main Page both right now, and in a short time too. HeCameFromTheShadows (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      From the definition of controversial: Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated. Several editors !voted delete in that AfD, so there clearly is disagreement (controversy) in the AfD. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      But the argument now is that a keep consensus has been established after the initial snow close. It might have been too early then but is sure as hell (mind the pan) justified now. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      

      HeCameFromTheShadows, please tell us who you are a block-evading sock puppet of. --MuZemike 22:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Admin help needed in ARBMAC area
      

      Cross wiki POV pusher added unconsensus map to the ARBMAC area Kosovo article. I restored original neutral map that was in the article for years, and after that, several reverts occurred, last one by highly involved admin. Kosovo article is under 1RR parole, so i am asking for a some neutral admin to restore original map until talk page discussion is over. None is allowed to push its own povs without agreement, especially when nationalistic causes are fuel. So, admin should restore old consensus map, and wait for a new agreement on talk. We must follow rules. Old map must stay in article until (if) new map is agreed on. --WhiteWriterspeaks 21:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      

      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=507107292"