Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

280

290

300

←

→

This ANI archive was last edited on 2023-04-03 09:44:04 (or you can check the first revision).

Section size for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330 (44 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	765	765
Comment from Jimbo	7,005	7,005
Indefinite block of an established editor	4,130	104,193
Unblock with apologies	1,212	1,212
Question "courtesy blanking"	5,604	5,604
Followup	60,742	60,742
Section break	4,096	4,096
False positives	7,929	7,929
CopyVio Alert	996	996
Can we take a step back from the Durova-bashing a bit?	15,379	15,379
Problems with Durova require ongoing monitoring and follow-up	4,105	4,105
Durova needs to be desysoped	8,336	22,630
support of Durova	14,294	14,294
About this thread...	8,175	8,175
This whole discussion/topic (above) should be available in ANI	474	474
I might get yelled at for this, but...	7,112	7,112
WOW, Is this a flash-back or what?!	4,480	4,480
OPEN TO RECALL	3,635	3,635
Most sensible comment so far	4,216	4,216
Wrong end of the problem	6,561	6,561
Why the hurry?	14,559	14,559
Open to Recall	8,697	8,697
Meta discussion about the use of the subpage and when to archive	5,266	5,266
Isn't an RFC the next logical and appropriate step?	3,745	3,745
Drama	17,574	17,574
Some suggestions	1,010	1,010
Thanks for getting to the truth:	2,535	2,535
ArbCom Elections silly season	2,233	2,233
Durova's evidence	6,929	6,929
What is going on?	4,947	4,947
I was having a bad day	494	494
Time to archive	7,456	18,718
Jehochman v. Jehochman	5,315	5,315
Anything left to say?	5,947	5,947
Oversighted edits?	11,207	15,867
Siege mentality	4,660	4,660
BADSITES	787	787
The Sooper Seekrit Cabal Mailing List?	2,273	2,273
Thoughts and suggestion for ending this	2,651	2,651
Giano II blocked	8,680	8,680
Durova's block of LionheartX	5,677	5,677
Closing this thread	6,850	13,994
Again, anything left to say?	7,144	7,144
References	54	54
Total	305,936	305,936

The fact that someone has not locked this page to end this mindless paranoia is a bit shocking. Dead issue is dead, and to stand by and watch fellow Wikipedians get abused like this just isn't cool. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 08:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is far from dead. We are still lacking a good and valuable editor. Who is very distressed by this debacle. Giano (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Let people give their opinions. Once everyone has had their say and action (if any) is taken on the issue, everyone will move on on their own. Cla68 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I just got frozen out of editing twice in a row, once due to a delete, and now it's admin protected. This is beyond ridiculous. But at least there's less opportunity for drama! sNkrSnee | t.p. 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

I call for this page to be unprotected. This is a very important issue that people have been actively discussing, and for someone to come and shut down the discussion is inappropriate. Everyking (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Especially a newish admin who is involved in the debate. AniMate 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Protecting the page only fuels more animosity and accusations of "coverup". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a thread on Mercury's talk page as well. I really do have to go now, and I wish I could help calm things down, but could someone restore my edits that Mercury removed? Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that protection is ill-advised and removing talk page comments absolutely unacceptable. I thought I restored all the comments but I can go back and check. RxS (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I restored your comments. Any other opinions on the page protection? If there's no consensus for it, the page shold be unprotected. RxS (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the protection. I can see why it was done, and I echo the calls to "move along". But this will only be counter-productive.--Doc^g 18:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Even with my intinal comment on this talk page, it does seem that giving people a place to vent is best option for damage control at this point. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:!! has unblanked the original post by Durova

Since !! is the subject of the original post I think they are the only person other than Durova who should be allowed to unblank it. I don't know their motives, and I don't care about their motives, but I think it should be allowed to stand. It is all fairly moot, now, and perhaps it would be best to let this part of the matter rest as is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As a lack of transparency seems to be a part of the issue at hand, I don't see how blanking or deleting this discussion would help matters. --健次(derumi)^talk 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)