Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 07:10, 29 June 2013 (Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:10, 29 June 2013 by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) (Archiving 1 discussion to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive250. (BOT))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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,
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

    This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
    Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
    "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,
    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.

      Archiving icon
      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 40 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 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 106 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

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

      (Initiated 86 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)
      would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

      Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples

      (Initiated 77 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?

      (Initiated 75 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

      Talk:Catholic Church#RfC: Establishing an independent Catholicism article

      (Initiated 27 days ago on 26 December 2024) Requesting closure from uninvolved impartial third party to close a discussion that has not seen a novel argument for a bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

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

      Deletion discussions

      XFD backlog
      V Oct Nov Dec Jan Total
      CfD 0 0 0 8 8
      TfD 0 0 0 6 6
      MfD 0 0 0 4 4
      FfD 0 0 2 18 20
      RfD 0 0 0 93 93
      AfD 0 0 0 0 0

      Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters

      (Initiated 33 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 10#WP:DISNEY categories

      (Initiated 19 days ago on 3 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 9#Category:Molossia Wikipedians

      (Initiated 13 days ago on 9 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

      Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 13#Redundant WP:COMICS categories

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 13 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

       Closed by editor Timrollpickering. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

      Other types of closing requests

      Talk:Free and open-source software#Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software

      (Initiated 250 days ago on 17 May 2024) Would an uninvolved experienced editor please assess the consensus at Talk:Free and open-source software § Proposed merge of Open-source software and Free software into Free and open-source software? Thank you. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

      Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal

      (Initiated 119 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

      Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal

      (Initiated 85 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:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

      (Initiated 25 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

      Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II

      (Initiated 16 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

      Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50

      (Initiated 12 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

      Yup, the discussion does need to be closed. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

      Talk:Xiaohongshu#Requested move 14 January 2025

      (Initiated 8 days ago on 14 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its been more than 7 days and there appears to be a consensus. There haven't been new opinions for almost three days now. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

       Closed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed.  09:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

      Backlog at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves

      There is a backlog at WP:RM that takes up nearly half the page and extends more than a month back. It's clear from the talk page that there are a few non-admins who are trying to help close and perform non-controversial moves that lead to redlinks, but administrative powers are needed to address the growing number of moves leading to bluelinks (moves over a redirect) that non-admins can't perform. Any help would be much appreciated. -Thibbs (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

      {{db-move}} can be used by non-admins. But I'm not sure why anyone would want to close those things, admin or not. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      Thanks for the tip, Nathan. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      I just non-admin closed a handful I found to be pretty obvious Calidum Sistere 04:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      And thanks for your help too, Calidum. -Thibbs (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

      Please close debate

      You're looking for WP:ANRFC, which is transcluded at the top of this page. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

      After over a month of debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates, my count of the responses is 8 keep, 8 remove and 1 in the middle. I am fairly certain this should be closed no consensus, but await an admin to put this 8 week debate to rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

      Since you sent out a batch of talk-page notifications on the 25th (including one to me, who had already commented), there have been some new opinions registered—one just a quarter of an hour ago. I'd give it a little more time, myself, but you may be right. (And I make the current count 9–11–1, for what that's worth.) Deor (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      I was thinking that since the RFC bot (talk · contribs) just closed the debate, I would call for closure here. I just got around to reading WP:POST and saw the discussion listed there last week. It will probably be listed there again this week. So I will give it another week. I may even see if there are other ways to broaden the responses.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      You might try WikiProject Biography, since the discusion deals specifically with the use of navboxes in biographical articles, and those particular articles are within the purview of the project's "Arts and entertainment" working group. Deor (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

      Account creator user right

      Would an admin please action this RFC closure, the closer (User:Nathan Johnson) couldn't himself because he isn't an admin. A list of users who have the account creator right and are not active on the ACC tool can be found here. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

      Why can't he close it?--v/r - TP 14:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      He has closed it, but he hasn't actioned that closure, as only admins can remove user rights. Nathan's closure means that the account creator user right will need to be removed from all the users on Callanecc's list. I'd do it myself, but it's late here now, and there are a lot of users on the list. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      But he can update the policy to reflect the RFC.--v/r - TP 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      Callanecc: Can you cross reference that list with the Staff and Sysop lists and remove folks who would otherwise have the same rights from any alternate accounts they might have?--v/r - TP 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      Also, how does your RFC deal with situations like this? He registers folks accounts in person and not on the ACC tool.--v/r - TP 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      I've now gone down 5 on that list and everyone of them had a valid reason to have account creator: Staff working with students, course instructors, and a self-appointed volunteer at universities. So I think more thought needs to go into that list before anyone acts on your RFC.--v/r - TP 16:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      I'm 1 for 12 now. I think serious attention needs to be given that list. It's clearly not as cut-and-dry as the list makes it out to be and the RFC appears to have been fault at the start having not taken into account administrator alternate accounts and course instructors/volunteers.--v/r - TP 16:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      For anyone else working this, I have to go to a meeting, I left off at Another Believer. Everyone above him needs the right still for ep or because it's an alt account of an administrator.--v/r - TP 16:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      I was automagically notified of this discussion. Did I forget to do something? Or do something wrongly? Let me know. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      @TParis / Callanecc - that list is automatically generated, it's not meant to be used to say "everyone here ought to have it removed". Besides, due to the toolserver being... well... the toolserver, I think it's gonna be running either 9 days or 7 hours behind real time due to replication lag. I'd advise not using it for authoritative information. 22:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
      Right, but I have separate concerns about the RFC itself. I'm concerned that it didn't take into account EP and administrator alts.--v/r - TP 01:42, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      Discussions in need of closure

      Thanks. Werieth (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

      User:Retrolord's user and talk pages

      Make a good request, and you get a good response. And quickly, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

      I am not in the slightest bit concerned about being one of the named users, but in deference to being possibly WP:INVOLVED I am making this request here. I am asking for the removal of the section at User:Retrolord#Royal Decrees and the bold face statement in caps at the top of User talk:Retrolord. This immature nonsense makes a mockery of Misplaced Pages for any one who happens on those pages. I'm not sure if this is covered by WP:POLEMIC or WP:Userpage or not, but I think it has to go if we are to maintain a serious profile for Misplaced Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

      Is it this easy...

      ...to avoid accountability for your actions. I would be interested to hear opinions/comments on the following "hypothetical" example:

      • a user has had more than one report filed at ANI, by different users, within two weeks
      • the user was duly notified on his/her talk page for each report
      • during the time each report was active, the user was editing daily on Misplaced Pages
      • the user made no comment on any of the ANI reports
      • the first report has already been archived
      • the second report has concerns expressed by several users, but no response from the individual in question, after more than five days
      • failure to engage in a discussion at ANI is, in this example, an extension of some of the other disruptive behaviors which generated the reports in the first place

      Is it really that simple? Can someone engage in behavior which is of concern to other editors on Misplaced Pages, and then repeatedly choose to ignore ANI discussions without consequence? Disclosure: within the context of the hypothetical, I have neither reported the user to ANI nor am I the user being reported. Taroaldo ✉ 01:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      This really isn't the right place for a question like this, But I'm at a loss as to where the right place would be, maybe the village pump?. However, I'll nibble. The answer would be no. Persistent non-response to an editor's complaint is not acceptable. Ok, if in the first instance of being reported to ANI, they don't show up but cease the behaviour that they were reported for then there is no issue. If the editor behaviour is raised at ANI again but by numerous editors then there is a case for a preventative block, pending admin investigation. This has happened before and will no doubt happen more in the future. Blackmane (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      I couldn't figure out a better place to ask this question than here. It isn't really a hypothetical, but if I start citing specifics then there will be a third discussion open, which wouldn't be productive. My main concern is that there doesn't seem to be a practical process in place to deal with this type of situation. Neither of the two reports I cited received any administrator comment — perhaps everyone was waiting for a response from the user. If a user is uncivil/disruptive in their interactions with other editors sufficient to get an ANI report every few weeks but is not so blatant as to attract immediate administrator intervention (i.e. outside of ANI), then that user can seemingly ignore the ANI discussions without consequence (so far as I have observed). Failure to manage this effectively will only serve to frustrate productive editors who may end up leaving the project as many have done before them. Taroaldo ✉ 10:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      If there is, in fact, an actual issue with their editing, and there is consensus that there needs to be a block, topic-ban, etc. in response to it, then their lack of comment in the AN/I discussion has no bearing on things. They, presumably, read the notice, and chose not to comment in their defense (or otherwise...), then whatever remedy needs to be applied is applied regardless. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Taroaldo - It's impossible to comment without knowing the context of what drove you to this question. All we have is your perception. I thought I knew what you were talking about until you said there had been no admin comments and now I'm at a loss. I'll only say this: some ANI reports are frivilous and others arn't structured in a way that makes sense and a third group are disputes that admin's won't touch with a remote controlled robot and a 20 ft pole.--v/r - TP 01:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The question is meant to be general but it was prompted by a real situation which still has one active report. I didn't feel it would be appropriate to provide diffs for illustrative purposes at AN while a report is still open at ANI. I have provided links on your talk page so you can see the full context. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 03:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The problem, Taroaldo, is that we can't make any definitive statements when you speak in pointed vagueries. Your initial post amounts to "Can we all agree that evil is bad?" If everyone agrees, so what? Unless we know exactly what situation you are talking about, we can't make any statements about whether or not the situation is or is not being dealt with properly. We have no way to even know if your characterization of the situation is accurate unless we can view the entirety of the situation with our own eyes and arrive at our own conclusions. --Jayron32 04:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

      Admin help required

      I'm not sure if I've posted this in the right place (probably not), but I was hoping for some admin assistance please on a technical issue that has been raised at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Spelling in quotations. All the Eurovision articles are written using British English, and we currently have implemented the template {{British English}} on all of the article talk pages. However, we have since found out that we may also use {{British English|form=editnotice}} on the article's edit notices - but we've hit a technical glitch; to achieve this action requires an administrator. Is there anyone with a spare moment or two that would be willing to assist us with this task? Thank you very much in advance, as this help is much appreciated. Wesley ☮ Mouse 06:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

       Done — Mr. Stradivarius 09:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      Advice please.

      I left an enquiry here with an administrator. As can be seen, the administrator concerned, User:Georgewilliamherbert, undertook to review the issue on May 23rd. But since then I have heard nothing from him, although (as can be seen) I have made a couple of enquiries on his talk page. Can someone advise me please on procedure in this situation? I still wish my enquiry to be addressed, as the editor who is its subject is still (in my opinion) stirring up related problems elsewhere. Should I, for example, place the situation on AN/I?Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      Well, once you brought it here, you'll need to advise both Andy and George ... because posting it here is the equivalent to ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      OK, apologies for not appreciating the etiquette, I have never listed anything here myself before. I will therefore shortly list the whole shebang properly on ANI and advise both formally.--Smerus (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      Done.--Smerus (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      New proposal for admins

      Boldly closing. I will be the first to admit we have some problems, and I'm often the first to get involved and try to find a solution. This isn't the solution, as PS himself has concluded. This was precipitated by a block that arguably had too low a threshold, but that isn't the same as abuse. We need to work on these problems but this isn't the way we will find a solution. I'm closing not to stop discussion, but to stop drama, as there is zero chance this proposal will pass, and it is in the wrong venue to start with. Lets go edit articles, reflect on this, and approach the problem with a fresh perspective tomorrow. Please. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

      Many recent incidents, not just the two concerning me vis a vis Jmh649 and Bwilkins (they have been notified), have me quite concerned about standards of admin behavior. Those two admin both blocked me within the last two weeks and the blocks were unanimously overturned. Why do they feel it's okay to make such blocks?--because they know nothing will happen to them. The stigma of blocks cannot be erased. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bwilkins_block_of_PumpkinSky. How Bwilkins can think he was doing me a favor when he edit warred, protected the same page, and then blocked me is mind boggling. Look at comments by others in the thread. Essentially they say he violated every possible rule in this situation. And what are the repurcussions to me? NOTHING. Such incidents are getting more and more common. I'll let the other victims speak for themselves.

      And don't tell me you know how us non admins feel unless you have been on the receiving end of such actions. And don't tell me admins are just users with some bits--we all now that's hogwash and there are special rules for admins. And people wonder why participation in wiki has been nosediving for 6 years.

      So, to raise the standards of behavior of admins and make them think before they act, I have a new proposal:

      • "Any admin who blocks someone and said block is overturned as being unwarranted shall be blocked themselves for the same amount of time."

      It's high time admins got a taste of their own medicine around here and acted like admins should be acting. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      • I would oppose that because it would be trivial for me to game that on IRC to get any admin blocked, and I'm sure it would be just as easy for anyone else to game. This is the wrong solution. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Oppose That looks to me like the very definition of a punitive block. Aside from giving the admin "a taste of their own medicine", what possible benefit is derived for Misplaced Pages from this proposal? Not to mention the obvious fact that this would be hugely open to abuse. I realise that you're pissed off, PumpkinSky, but this strikes me as an ill-thought-out, knee-jerk reaction to your recent block; it's contrary to the blocking policy and contrary to basic common sense. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) Well, I know that I always think before I act. My post on ANI this morning, significantly after the well was poisoned by overnight discussion, shows that my thought processes were extremely clear and correct - and although some apologies for the thoroughly non-AGF responses by my fellow-editors should be forthcoming, they never will - and that's fine with me. There's no consensus that the block was unwarranted, and penalizing anyone for doing what they believe is protecting the project will lead to a) fewer admins, b) fewer admins willing to make difficult blocks (which this one was not, by the way), and therefore c) more damage to the project in the long run. Making ridiculous proposals when a) you're already pissed about ArbComm and b) your pride is hurt really does not help the project - this "proposal" was poorly thought out and was more reactionary than anything (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      You introduced the term "poisoned" into this discussion. I don't support the proposal because I think we need fewer blocks, not more, but your reaction seems to invite something like this. Like many others, I don't share your belief that your block protected the project, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • So of course an admin who removes his own bad block before he can be hauled off to ANI or ArbCom, while recording a false unblock notice that remains on the editor's record, would be exempt because his block wasn't technically overturned .... bzzzzzzzt. A good strategy, and one that can be gamed with your suggestion. It's the internet; get over it already (and I disagree with the way you have framed the Bwilkins' block anyway). You got an unblock message in your log from someone uninvolved; quit whining already, especially when you sit by silently when what you perceive as a bad block happens to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree that the problem of WP:INVOLVED admins is being too quickly brushed aside on these boards, but the solution proposed by Pumpkin (tit-for-tat bad blocks) is silly. Arbcom once proposed a so-called administrative supervision (of admins), but I see no evidence it was ever used. There seems to be no practical, intermediate solution between doing nothing and desysopping by Arbcom. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) x 2 This is the third time that this has happened to PumpkinSky. Editors will remember the notorious block of PumpkinSky by Moni3, two hours after she called him an "idiot" and a "dingus" (similar to conduct for which Hawkeye7 was desysopped). While I'm not certain that blocking in response is the answer, I think there is becoming an issue here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • PumpkinSky is upset, I get that and I understand it. If I am to be fair, I have to say that what I saw was a block that was done in good faith, but with too low a threshold. Bad cases make for bad law, etc. etc. I recommend closing this at the earliest reasonable time. What we need is admin to address their fellow admin who "mess up" and this has been happening. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      It's happening too much. You know what we went through yesterday to retain an editor, who while he may have been justly blocked, blew up as the result of gross admin baiting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      And I've injected myself in every one of these situations and others you may not be aware of, and in ways that aren't always published online. They aren't being ignored. That doesn't mean we can paint every situation with the same brush. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 12:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Bwilkins' response shows he has zero understanding of the error of his ways. This proves that there are serious issues with today's admins corps. This may not be the best idea, but something needs to be done. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Facepalm, and strong oppose One of the most POINTy proposals in the history of Misplaced Pages, and an absolutely crazy one at that. Besides, given the way it is worded, this scenario could easily arise: Admin X blocks a sockmaster indefinitely. Said sockmaster stops socking, accepts the standard offer 6 months later, and is unblocked. Admin X, who was acting completely within policy, is now blocked indefinitely by Admin Y. Admin Z realizes this is stupid, and unblocks Admin X, and then has to block Admin Y in the process. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • What a complete waste of time this discussion is. Admins, Checkusers (and Arbs too for that matter) have been ignoring all rules and hindering ordinary writing editors for as long as Misplaced Pages has been invented. Nothing is going to change because most of those who put themselves up for these lofty positions are little more than tin gods with a frustrated lust for power in real life, Misplaced Pages provides them with the powers and platforms which real life so very wisely denies them. Only Arbs and Admins can change this situation, and they are not going to admit their all too apparent inadequacies by changing anything. Accept that, and Misplaced Pages becomes a lot easier.  Giano  12:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Almost totally agree Giano, but felt compelled to bring this up, maybe just one admin will change for the better, yes that's a naive thought but eh. PumpkinSky talk 12:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
          • If you think anything that happens on Misplaced Pages is going to change the behavior of any "lusting for power in real life" admin, playing out their miserable frustrations by pounding on a keyboard, and then polishing their new brass buckles for their buddies after a high profile block, then you have failed to understand Giano's message. By the way, have you read WP:FLEAS lately? Or perhaps your own posts about "Karma" coming back 'round at 'ya? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Oppose - Should Admin be blocked if they continually make bad blocks? Sure. But the wording of this proposal is ludicrous. Why would they be penalized the exact amount they were blocking someone else for? That could potentially be very disproportionate to the bad block they have done. I'm sorry if you were wrongfully blocked (I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of your situation), but you need to cool off and think this out a little further. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      (Forgive me I already had this typed out before it was closed, and I think it is relevant) Pumpkin Sky, a few months back, an IP was in dispute with BWilkins regarding his treatment of IPs and was dragging BWilkins to the dramaboards 2-3 times a day for a few days. I suggested to that IP that if they were to open and RFC/U on BWilkins that I would contribute my unpleasant experience with BWilkins. This would show a pattern, and I believe a few other instances would be brought up by other users, too. This thread will not result in anything, so as I suggested to the IP back then, please start an RFC/U if this issue continues to bother you enough, and I will throw in my 2 cents there. Rgrds. --64.85.217.10 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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

      Infobox World Heritage Site TfD tag

      An admin is needed, please, to add a TfD tag to the protected {{Infobox World Heritage Site}}; please see details at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

       Done --Salix (talk): 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      RfC on editing other user's article talk page comments with Flow

      Misplaced Pages:Flow is a planned improvement to the way MediaWiki software handles article talk pages. There is an RfC about how to configure Flow regarding editing other people's article talk page comments. The RfC is at Misplaced Pages talk:Flow#Request for Comment on editing other user's comments with Flow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      Backlog at RFPP

      There's a sizeable backlog at WP:RFPP. I'm going to start wading through the requests now, however if a couple other admins would like to pop by as well that would be über-helpful. --Jezebel'sPonyo 16:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

      Categories:
      Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Add topic