| |
---|---|
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General |
|
Articles and content |
|
Page handling |
|
User conduct |
|
Other |
|
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pingingisnot enough.
You may use Sections inactive for over seven days are archivedbyLowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Administrators' (archives, search) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
344 | 345 | 346 | 347 | 348 | 349 | 350 | 351 | 352 | 353 |
354 | 355 | 356 | 357 | 358 | 359 | 360 | 361 | 362 | 363 |
Incidents (archives, search) | |||||||||
1140 | 1141 | 1142 | 1143 | 1144 | 1145 | 1146 | 1147 | 1148 | 1149 |
1150 | 1151 | 1152 | 1153 | 1154 | 1155 | 1156 | 1157 | 1158 | 1159 |
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search) | |||||||||
465 | 466 | 467 | 468 | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 |
475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | 480 | 481 | 482 | 483 | 484 |
Arbitration enforcement (archives) | |||||||||
315 | 316 | 317 | 318 | 319 | 320 | 321 | 322 | 323 | 324 |
325 | 326 | 327 | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | 333 | 334 |
Other links | |||||||||
| |||||||||
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 40 | 0 | 40 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 24 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Report | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A dispute over whether to include a deceased person in Oldest people, and with what details, resulted in edit-warring (see May 14 in the edit history), blocking and, in one case, an eventual indef for one user. Some of the content on the talk page has already been struck but an editor claiming to be a relative of the deceased person has requested that all comments about the person be deleted. This would (presumably?) require striking of much of the content of Talk:Oldest_people#Corrections: and some of Talk:Oldest_people#Page_protection_request. It might be necessary to pin a notice to ensure the person is not mentioned again or included in the article, though how this could be done without the person's name beats me, unless it is possible to flag the name for bot detection. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jamiesonandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blocking admin: Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our projectdoes not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black talk • contribs 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
learn from it, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns that Meirtt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have obtained their ECP status through gaming the system.
They registered their account in November of 2023. In June 2024, they started editing, making minor edits to numerous disparate topics, such as Tobacco politics (60 edits); Malaysia–Romania relations (29 edits); US & Canada's Ledcor Group of Companies (22 edits); Pollution in China (22 edits); Oak Creek, Wisconsin (22 edits); the disease Schistosomiasis (21 edits); etc.; source: Xtools. Immediately upon obtaining 500 edits, they jumped into Israel-Palestine topics.
Could an administrator please review the situation? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page Botola is always vandalized. Please lock it for a long time 160.177.133.23 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is sabotage every time the page has to be closed. So both users are accusing the other of vandalism, and that's even worse than the lack of sourcing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, article is semi-protected until 21 June. I would advise all participants to discuss on the talk page and source their additions/changes/kept text. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This person verbally attacked me, but I was clearly discussing this in a friendly manner, and I did not attack back. I remained friendly from beginning to end. Mcx8202229 🇨🇳❤️ (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Anti-Defamation League has been droning on forever and is literally causing the RSN, an already high-activity page, to slow down and malfunction. The discussion has become stagnant and bloated and needs an uninvolved closer badly just because it’s making it difficult to actually use the noticeboard. Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A request for review of the draft article for Hassan Nisar Haripur, an award-winning Pakistani entrepreneur, YouTuber, and philanthropist, is being made. Despite meeting Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the article has been rejected multiple times by Saqib.
Hassan Nisar Haripur's achievements and coverage in reputable sources demonstrate notability:
- Award-winning entrepreneur (references: [1] [2])
- Featured in top Pakistani publications, including The Dawn and The Tribune (references: [3] [4])
Wikipedia's policy on award-winning individuals states that they are eligible for a Wikipedia page (WP:NATIONALAWARD) .
High-quality sources have been provided to support the article's notability, but Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. A review of the article is requested to assess whether it meets the necessary criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia.
Please review the draft article and references to ensure a fair evaluation. Uohabacasu (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib has consistently rejected the draft. Three different editors declined the draft, and then Saqib rejected it after looking for more sources. Meters (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was supposed to be informed about this discussion on my tp. --Saqib (talkIcontribs) 10:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite recently I noticed this [2] on the Starlink website after hearing about "dynamic IP's" from this [3] discussion. Considering these IP's do not flag as proxy's, are they a issue in regards to Sockpuppets? Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 11:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, is my conduct on United States appropriate? I'm trying to purge the dysfunction from the rfc I did but I'm struggling to gauge whether it's appropriate to have another topic on redesigning it for relisting. I don't plan on engaging in a relisting Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a racist troll running amok. I have blocked them twice. They create new accounts and make rapid fire edits to random pages with vile edit summaries that require individual revdeling. Any help appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Please note that this discussion falls under WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and is thus only open to logged-in editors with extended confirmed permissions. |
This RSN RfC on the Anti-Defamation League has been partly (as in, only a part of it) closed by TrangaBellam, with the summary: I see a consensus for Option 3
[generally unreliable regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict] — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too.
BilledMammal went to Tranga's Talk to say that they oughtn't have closed, since their Talk Page is decorated with a quote by Nishidani (a participant in the RfC, who voted in alignment with Tranga's close), which includes: ...I sympathise with the silenced underdog in so many conflicts, be they Aboriginals or Palestinians or Tibetans. This as far as I am aware does not translate into being uncomfortable with my country of origins, or antisemitic, or hostile to Chinese. ...
. Tranga disagreed; Dcpoliticaljunkie and FortunateSons agreed and asked Tranga to revert; Tranga declined.
Back at RSN, My very best wishes challenged the close, writing that an RfC should not be partially closed, that this RfC is so long and big that it should be closed by an admin, and that the provided justification (just a head count) was doubtful.
. A brief discussion took place before being hatted by ScottishFinnishRadish, who directed towards AN.
I hope this post is not malformed—I've never posted here before. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting. Additionally, OP calls TrangaBellam's closure reason
just a headcountbut this is a misrepresentation. The full closure reads,
I see a consensus for Option 3 — going by the numbers (roughly, 3:1) as well as the relative strength of arguments — and note that most of the participants were okay-ish with deprecation too(italics added). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request all involved editors to take a step back and let this close review not devolve into a unreadable mess as the RFC did. Abecedare (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
3 of 4 participants [almost none of whom were flyby SPAs or the like] were convinced that Option 3, at the very least, was necessary. There is no way that the discussion could have been closed differently by someone else, short of supervoting.Now, I can append a paragraph on why, notwithstanding the numbers, the argument offered by the numerically superior side carried the day but I doubt it would have convinced anyone to not relitigate it. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Please note that this discussion falls under WP:ARBPIA restrictions, and is thus only open to logged-in editors with extended confirmed permissions. |
feel free to have the last word. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we're just admitting why no one is stepping up to make this obvious close
non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, but the closer not being an admin is not the "only reason" as said reason is compounded by there existing a perception of them being involved so my recommendation is consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure:
Generally, if you want to request closure by an uninvolved administrator, it's expected that the discussion will have already been open at least a week, and that the subject is particularly contentious or the outcome is unclear.(The subject is inherently particularly contentious; some editors are subsequently requesting a close by an uninvolved administrator as they have concerns about the close by the not-fully-uninvolved-seeming non-administrator). Worth the extra bother. Vacating and reclosing shouldn't be seen as a big deal.—Alalch E. 01:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if we're going to kick sand in the face of a reputable civil rights organizationand of course this quote doesn't make you involved at all, right? Selfstudier (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Potential meatpuppets incoming: Article in Israeli website --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AtWikipedia:In the news/Candidates, the entry under June 15 for Kevin Campbell has been marked ready for over two and a half days now, even while other stories have been posted. I can't post it myself as I nominated it. Could someone do the honours? Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]