Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard

archiving cocked up?

The "request for sanction removal" section has been closed for days but has not been auto archived. There was some code preventing archiving but I removed it five days ago. Anyone got a clue what the problem is? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's all one big section, with subsections for proposals 2, 3, continuing discussion, and topic-ban violation, so your closure of the indef block is the last post. It should archive after 1800 on the 6th if we have 48 hour archiving. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh...yeah... so it is. How silly of me. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not silly at all. I was wondering the same thing when I was holding proposal 3 to get formally closed, and only figured out what was going on when I looked closer at how all the sections were organized. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 04:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Inactive

Does someone want to look at my edit to User talk:Fram ? I didn't realize the admin was inactive when I posted it. I didn't want to bother any of the boards with it because I don't really know how it should be dealt with.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/David Adam Kess is the article here and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#Widespread_spamming_by_a_photographer is the discussion at commons. They claim that this photographer's images have been added to many articles at en:wp. It seems most edits are done by IPs. I haven't got a clue myself how to deal with it. There is also at least one red link category in the AfC that could probably use routine maintenance deletion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments requested before I implement consensus at WP:VisualEditor/Default State RFC

I tried to post my comments to the discussion but it seems IP's aren't welcome on this noticeboard so I'm posting here instead. Feel free to post it to the discussion or leave it here. The mere fact that the WMF is choosing to implement the VE application to a couple dozen more wiki's this month only shows they aren't listening. There are literally hundreds of bugs that need to be fixed. It still doesn't work at all with any version of internet explorer and multiple Wiki's are on the verge of a revolt. There is absolutely no possible good that can come out of continuing this implementation before a large group of the problems are fixed. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Crossposted. Sorry for the protection. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Images on ANI

Some editors appear to be enforcing an unstated iconoclastic policy. Why should ANI look so dull, and why should a modern multimedia encyclopædia be discussed in purely textual terms. A picture can be worth 1000 words!♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 00:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

As you've been told multiple times, ANI is not for content discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Banning images is quite clearly a policy issue. Without relating to content, how can you discuss conduct?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{(♥ Talk♥ )} 15:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not ANI, this is the talk page for ANI, which is of course the exactly correct place for this discussion. NE Ent 15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent, LOdm was clearly referring to the image of the penises they inserted into ANI in an attempt to hold a content discussion there. I was reminding them that it was removed as ANI is not the place for such discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

♥ L'Origine du monde ♥, policy issues are discussed at WP:VPP. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Given that yet again, L'Origine du monde is engaging in soapboxing, rather than doing anything remotely constructive for Wikipedia, I propose that he/she be topic-banned from any discussions relating to images on Wikipedia, for a period of three months, in order to demonstrate to us that he/she is actually of net benefit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Andy, topic ban proposals should be made at WP:AN please. GiantSnowman 15:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose ANI should be dull -- addition of graphic images is more likely to inflame situations than resolve them. NE Ent 15:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Images in ANI!? Whatever next, recruiting Ty Pennington to give the place an Extreme Makeover: ANI Edition? Sign up Lady Gaga to serenade us upon entry? What purpose will images have on any admin noticeboard? None that I can think of. Wesley Mᴥuse 15:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to include images on ANI, you can link to them. Shockingly, this would be just link including a diff for an edit in question versus copying the full edit to ANI. The strong preference is for diffs. For images, it should be similar, meaning links. The desire to include graphical images on a page where they aren't needed seems a bit pointy. Ravensfire (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Can we? That would be AWESOME! Images offer the opportunity for the person complaining to hang themselves more quickly in a "aww crap" scenario of which could quickly be closed and collapsed. I personally have no issue with allowing "those editors" to do that if they wish. Technical 13 (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say half of all images at ANI are the result of people using the {{trout}} template. The reality is there is no strict rule against images at ANI, they do show up from time to time, but its understood that once someone gets around to removing them (converting to a link) that they should stay removed. Monty₈₄₅ 19:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Without commenting on the specific merits of whatever it was that precipitated this thread, I see no reason whatsoever why images should not be allowed in ANI discussions if they are germane to the topic at hand. In fact I would consider the removal of such images to be unacceptable refactoring of another user's comments. Unless the images have nothing to do with the topic at hand or are needlessly provocative I don't see what rationale their could be for removing them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Admin not explaining a decision that appears to go against WP:Label

The lede of the Men's Rights Movement article contains a sentence which appears to be in violation of WP:Label. Specifically:

The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, and sectors of the movement have been described as misogynist.

bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has effectively forbidden further discussion of this issue on the article's talk page.[1] The same admin insists that there is a consensus in favor of the "misogynist" language and has repeatedly sanctioned users who believe the language should be changed, insisting that the arguments for a change are "weak", and saying that people asking for change are "disruptive".[2][3][4]. Full disclosure -- I was also the recipient of such a sanction, but that's not my concern here.[5]. In light of all of this, one would expect bbb23 to explain why it is he or she believes it is clear that the quote is not in violation of WP:Label. However, no such explanation has been forthcoming.[6]. Furthermore, the apparent decision that this passage is consistent with WP:Label appears to be in contradiction with other decisions involving the same policy. For example, after a lengthy discussion, the Weather Underground is not described as a terrorist organization in the lede of its article, though the controversy of whether or not the label is appropriate is discussed in the body. That, despite the considerably stronger sourcing for the "terrorist" description of the WU than for the "misogynist" description of the MRM.[7]William Jockusch (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)