Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive182

WP:UAA backlogged

Resolved

 – Not now it ain't. _Gb^T/c 09:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The list has gotten a tad large. A few extra hands on deck would be neat-o. Thanks, caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Only a few left, all of which are being handled. _Gb^T/c 09:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Danke Schoen. caknuck _° resolves to be more caknuck-y 16:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats at 2009

Resolved

 – Alright, move along. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actors:

1. Bjagsjkdg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Lolkikjujhyh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Actions:

1. 15:38
2. 16:24

Response:

• Warnings on talk pages
• Sock puppet investigation
• and my blocks.

I don't think I've overreacted, but perhaps we should change the indef block from NLT to USER, but leave the IP autoblocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd call them vandalism-only accounts instead of labeling it legal threats, personally (I mean, what's credible about a threat from a guy who calls us "EPIK PHAILURES"?). It would still end up with the accounts indef'd anyways, though, so it's up to you whether or not you change the reason. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, and don't bother with the sockpuppet report - just indef block both as VOA. _Gb^T/c 16:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20

Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.

Two points that should be kept in mind:

• Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
• The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.

The agenda is as follows:

1. Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
   • Initiate RFC by January 21
   • Compile RFC results by February 21
   • Draft reform proposals by March 7
   • Finalize reform proposals by March 21
2. Determine procedure for publishing proposals
   • Decision by January 31
3. Appoint CU & OS operators
   • Finalize election setup by January 31
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
4. Determine case acceptance criteria
   • Decision by January 31
5. Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
   • Draft proposal by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
6. Decide on designating an IRC liaison
   • Compile chanop comments by January 31
   • Decision by February 14
7. Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
   • Finalize proposal by February 7
   • Finalize appointments by February 28
8. Determine recusal standards
   • Draft proposal by February 7
   • Decision by February 21
9. Determine workshop page structure
   • Decision by February 14
10. Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
11. Decide on acceptance of private evidence
    • Draft proposal by February 14
    • Decision by February 28
12. Prepare updated guide to arbitration
    • Draft by February 21
    • Finalized by March 7
13. Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
    • Draft proposal by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
14. Decide on locations of arbitration pages
    • Draft structure by February 21
    • Decision by March 7
    • Implementation by March 14
15. Move forward on handling civility
    • Detailed agenda by February 28
16. Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
17. Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
    • Draft proposal by February 28
    • Decision by March 14
18. Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Decision by March 21
19. Develop an arbitrator recall process
    • Draft proposal by March 7
    • Final proposal by March 21
20. Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
    • Draft by March 7
    • Finalized by March 21
21. Move forward on content dispute resolution
    • Detailed agenda by March 14
22. Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
    • Draft proposal due March 14
    • Decision due March 21
23. Prepare updated transition document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30
24. Prepare updated induction document
    • Draft by October 31
    • Finalized by November 30

For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection template on WP:MOSNUM

Resolved

 – Template embiggened. –xeno (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please make the protection template visible on this guideline page? This is a major dispute and the page has been locked for two months now, and the large template should help move the process forward. This would make it more clear to casual readers what the dispute is and what parts of the guideline may not currently be locked in to the "right version." I asked the protecting admin for the change,[1] but his main concern here seems to be aesthetics,[2] which I don't think matters much outside of the main space. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I think Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) would be a more appropriate place. Second, I really don't think that users who don't recognize the lock symbol are going to be editing that anyways (or would likely have their edits stay), so it seems irrelevant. If it's not clear on the talk page what the dispute is, you are going to get plenty of casual readers there asking anyways. There are already what looks like three or four different discussions ongoing, so why is one more valuable than the others? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Look, he point of the template is to make it clear to a casual editor that the content of the guideline is in dispute. Secondarily, it quickly informs editors not a party to the dispute when they can edit the guideline. The tiny icon doesn't accomplish either of those tasks. Editors shouldn't have to skim 167KB of talk page to try and piece together what is going on. I know I don't want to. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But it is not the whole WP:MOSNUM that is under dispute. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's a guideline under protection. Why are we making this a special exception to the general rule? -- Kendrick7^talk 04:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Helllo? Jannitorrrrs? Is anybody hoooommmeee??? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This might seem like a stupid question

...but I was wondering if an admin can delete their block log. If so, how is that viewed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Right now, block logs are forever, barring developer intervention. Grandmasterka 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to know, thanks.

An additional question: WP:AN differs from WP:ANI in that this board is for reporting issues specifically involving administrators? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think of it as a place for less urgent issues than ANI. In practice, there's virtually no difference. Grandmasterka 22:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Crap. I've not been considering the difference to be that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Grandmasterka on both points; in theory, ANI is for more urgent matters, and in practice, they have just become WP:ANI1 and WP:ANI2. --barneca (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Originally this was the "noticeboard" - things admins should know about. But then it started getting crowded with "incident reports" - things which required an admin's attention. Hence, the subpage, and after that various other spin-offs. I think 3RR came before Incidents actually now that I think about it, but heck, its all been a while ago. So this page is for things that are just Notices, Heads up, I did this, etc. - and Incidents is for, well, incidents. But I totoally agree with Grandmasterka that the difference is negligible and you can safely ignore it. Those who actually know the nuances will move if they deem it important enough. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no Stupid Questions.. there are only Stupid Admins. :D SirFozzie (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm so grateful Stupid Admins didn't link to my user page. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Experiment: is this going to be a blue link, or a red link... Category:Stupid Admins --barneca (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, this is the only time I'm going to warn you. Next time you violate WP:NSA, I'll have to block you. Such behavior will not be tolerated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah! (climbs the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man to prove he has the right to violate WP:NSA.) (Thanks for playing along EVula, I NEED the laughter today :D) SirFozzie (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well, this puts into focus the meat of ThuranX' comment a week or so ago that I was forum-shopping; I had thought I had posted a complaint in the wrong area (here, as opposed to AN/I, where I quickly moved it to after realizing my 'mistake') before, It would appear that I had not.

ps - it would be up for deletion at AfD, as it would be OR; bad admins are different from the simply stupid. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I called your actions forum shopping because you posted to three areas, starting two of them, and in none of them actively pointing to the others to centralize discussion, but instead keep all three going separately. It's that desire to see how long the three go separately, in hopes of getting me sanctioned faster or more harshly at one over others, that made it forum shopping, not that you posted to AN or AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk that you are going to treat this like a dog with a bone, forum-shopping was not my intention. WQA had already proven on two prior occasions to be ineffective in addressing behavioral issues, and I felt your behavior was too uncivil. I posted here before realizing that I had intended to post to AN/I. The only method by which matters were continued here was addressing that topsy-turvsy user, Manhattan Samurai (who, you may recall, you accused me of creating as a sock). Matters of substance continued only on the AN/I complaint, using the very post that had been initiated here, without any of the responses from here. If you want to rehash about getting blocked, don't blame me; I didn't make you act poorly. If you are carrying a grudge, realize that you are the only one doing so. If your behavior improves, the block has done its job.

Barring further accusation, this is my last comment on the subject. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Korlzor

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Korlzor, which is pretty much an open and shut case of block evasion by a user with a past history of block evasion, I have extended the December 20 one month block to Indefinite. I think it is fair to say that with this much obsessive disruptive behaviour and block evasion, this user is no longer welcome. Guy (Help!) 19:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JzG. With the amount of disruption created by this user on Tennis related articles, this was definitely in order. His disruption was to such an extent that eventually even the WT:TENNIS needed to be protected. Unfortunately with the amount of IP hopping undertaken by this user and the number of articles being disrupted, it is extremely difficult to protect them all. ^LeaveSleaves 19:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on applying a range block (or two) on the ip's? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support indef block of Korlzor and rangeblocks when and where necessary to stop IP hopping. GlassCobra 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's kinda fun that you call me a vandal when my only "vandalism" here has been turning sponsored tournaments names to location normal names (specially reverting tennisexperts Key Biscayne to Miami's). And well, I recommend you banning my ranges permanently. Have fun, I will. 62.57.239.245 (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.70.104 (talk)

I just filed three requests at WP:RPP, all concerning this user and his numerous IPs. There are other tennis articles affected in same way but it is impractical to ask for all those articles to be protected. I would strongly request any possible rangeblock to applied in order to at least restrict this user's disruption. ^LeaveSleaves 20:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User page tirade

Following this discussion and Rividian's subsequent block, now we have this tirade. Should we remove it per WP:USER#NOT? Specifically #10, "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." As having been involved with the discussion - and as one of the obvious targets of Rividian's anger - I don't want to do this myself. Tan | 39 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd say let it go. They're upset. Let them vent a bit. Nobody is mentioned specifically. It's not that bad. --Onorem♠Dil 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was in no way involved in the discussion, I don't see that paragraph on his user page as attacking anyone in particular. No names are mentioned and no specific events are referred to. It actually seems fairly general and measured, with no bad language or anything offensive. I think to remove it might be a bit unfair and it might smack of censorship - it's not against the rules just to be hacked off with Wikipedia, which is basically all that says. Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the perspectives. Tan | 39 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess some people just won't stop in their efforts to harass anyone who goes against the ruling clique... this is just pathetic. Perhaps you should checkuser me to figure out who I used to be, there's a lot of other ways you could try to upset me, you know. --Rividian (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You think I'm harassing - I think you're attacking. Perhaps you need a new hobby. Tan | 39 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the state of Wikipedia? Admins are tolerated even when they actively try to drive editors away? --Rividian (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. He came here to ask others for an opinion. That's not "actively try{ing) to drive editors away." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• If Rividian wants to make himself look foolish and hyperbolic in this way then I don't see why we should stop him. Nobody is mentioned by name. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protecting that article for a month based on vandalism which quite obviously only stemmed from the teams begin announced is a crazy decision. Insisting that you can only request unprotection from the protecting admin on that basis is even more so. MickMacNee (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't seem so crazy once on reads the protection log and edit history of Super Bowl XLII. It's a shame that Tanthalas39 decided to be so petty in the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection discussion, only serving to inflame the discussion. A non-petty response would have explained that we're smart enough to learn from history. The article for last year was protected and unprotected back and forth, in response to vandalism (and other things) and effectively ended up with the 1 month long semi-protection that has been imposed on this year's article, starting from the same point when the teams were announced.

  To be fair, it has to be noted that one of the other things was The Placebo Effect wheel warring to enforce xyr own decision rather than imposing protection in response to vandalism, per policy. Most telling, perhaps, was this full protection that followed this unprotection where no actual article edits occurred in the intervening period, rather undermining the assertion that vandalism would be rampant were the article to be unprotected. It was unprotected, and no edits happened at all, let alone vandalism edits.

  Also rather undermining the argument even for semi-protection was the fact that when the article was not protected, editors without accounts were undoing vandalism by editors with accounts. Ironically, protection was actually preventing good-faith vandal-fighters from helping Wikipedia. Consider, in the period directly before the aforelinked protection by The Placebo Effect during which vandalism supposedly was unmanageable, this quiet and unobtrusive reversion by 64.123.236.89 (talk · contribs), of vandalism perpetrated here by Connorpoirier (talk · contribs). Also consider another quiet reversion of vandalism by 199.8.239.176 (talk · contribs). Not only was the vandalism manageable, but the people who were helping to manage it were the people who were myopically accused of perpetrating it. Once again, the dogma that all editors without accounts are vandals and editors with accounts are not vandals proved to be the inverse of reality.

  So we should also learn from history that the assertion that the vandalism was "IP vandalism" (as stated in at least one protection summary) and the assertion that there were a few good faith editors with accounts fighting overwhelming vandalism from the masses without accounts, are both untrue in reality. A fair amount of the vandalism was by editors with accounts, and the Great Unwashed who had never logged in to Wikipedia were helping to keep it at bay — when administrators actually allowed them to.

  I hope that this year's crop of administrators are smart enough to learn from that. The fact that the editors without accounts don't make a song and dance about reverting vandalism in their edit summaries doesn't mean that they aren't reverting vandalism nonetheless. Editors without accounts help Wikipedia. They wrote most of its content, after all. And they fight vandalism, too. When protecting, make sure that you are protecting against the right editors. Sometimes blocking the editors with the accounts is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you please show where I "decided to be petty", Uncle G? Tan | 39 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I requested unprotection last night and seem to have hit the same beaurocratic wall. Protecting for a month simply based on what happened last year is not on in my eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Facebook files

I've today speedy delete marked many meansless files. That is not for any articles. Can someone please delete them? The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working through the files presently, so it should be taken care of. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why schould they be keeped? They are totally useless. The Rolling Camel (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The image CSD which apply to them are timed, and they already have the timed templates on them. Having no strong reason not to, I'd prefer to let the process just run its course. lifebaka++ 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it looks like these images [3] were all originally uploaded correctly with a PD release by Calvin Ho Jiang Lim (talk · contribs) who is now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppet abuse (according to the tag on his page). Later an IP came by and blanked the image descriptions, and the images were subsequently tagged for having no license. So at face value, it would appear that all of the images could be saved by reverting to the original release. However, it also appears that these are personal images and none that I checked are used in any articles, so I'm not sure if they are actually useful for anything. Dragons flight (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That is what i was trying to say. The Rolling Camel (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had been wondering about the lack of descriptions... In that case, the correct approach would appear to be reverting to the version with the PD tag and doing a mass IfD nom for all of them, using the rationale presented here for their deletion. For free files (that are actually free), there's almost always an alternative to deletion, so the CSD don't cover them. I've never filed an IfD, so I'd prefer if another editor more familiar with the process did it instead, but I'd be happy to file if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful when tagging these images - I10 only applies to files which are not images, audio, or video. These images are not speedyable - just let the process run its course. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Page move help

Resolved

 – Moved. Thanks! -- Banjeboi 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could someone revert this company page move? It seems PlanetOut Inc., here! and Regent Entertainment Media are/have merged to become Here Media Inc.("PlanetOut, Here Networks and Regent Entertainment Media Announce Merger to Create Here Media Inc.") However LPI Media was a notable company with a long history prior to being bought by PlanetOut Inc. so renaming the article doesn't seem needed as much as clarifying that it is a subsiduary of one of the parent companies. -- Banjeboi 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The leftover redirect has only a single edit, you should be able to move the page back yourself... –xeno (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it did work, don't know what I was doing wrong. Cheers! -- Banjeboi 22:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please support Haskell syntax highlighting

Resolved

 – The devs are on the case. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to use Haskell syntax highlighting with the "source" tag, but a message about not supporting Haskell was displayed. The page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi says that Haskell syntax highlighting exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alquantor (talk • contribs) 16:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:VPT may be a more appropriate forum for this sort of suggestion; this has very little to do with administrators. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:VPT says: "This page is not for new feature requests." It looks to me that an administrator should install/enable new features Alquantor (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrators cannot install extensions; the most they can do is install gadgets. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Than where do I ask for a new feature? Alquantor (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bugzilla, which is where the developers are. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

OK I am going to nitpick here - this is not really a new feature, as the extension already exists (apparently), it just has not been enabled on en Wikipedia. Just thought I would throw that in.  – ukexpat (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think the prefeered way to request config changes, extentions added and such is to submit a enhancement request via the Wikipedia spesific bugzilla since that's where the devs use to manage their workflow. If the change is potentialy controversial you should probably have a RFC or something first and link to that in the request to show that there is a consensus to do the change first though. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I received an answer to my feature request: The Wikimedia servers are running an older version of GeSHi syntax highlighting [...] An update to the newest version is requested in bug 10967. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 10967 *** Alquantor (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok so they are already on it, if you add yourself to the CC list on bugzilla:10967 you'll get notified when it's updated by the way. --Sherool (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Talk Page content

Resolved

 – blocked by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs)

I'd appreciate some administrator input on the Talk:Celtic F.C. page. IP editor has taken offence at a talk page discussion which, by my reckoning, is a valid and relevant and a good example of consensus policies. IP Editor keeps removing discussion, despite intervention of other editors who have explained to him\her what he is doing wrong. Insists he\she knows the malicious intent of the contributing editors' better than anyone. Has now departed with threats of canvassing others and vague, possibly legal, threats on my talk page. What to do? Is talk page content valid? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for continuing disruptive editing. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Global War on Terror captives' habeas corpus petitions

There are 115 articles in this category (many of which have not been properly sorted). Some, like Rasul v. Bush, are independently notable because they went to higher courts and created precedents and much independent commentary and coverage, but 100-110 of them are simply links to and lists of docket filings in recently filed cases in district court and violate WP:NOT#LINKS and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. How is it best to proceed to avoid WP:MULTI? I could be WP:BOLD and simply merge, as one editor did with Zaid v. Bush, but that's a lot of work to engage in without a clear consensus first. As it is, the vast majority of them will need to be renamed to "v. Obama" in about thirty minutes. THF (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of these seem to be sourced to primary documents and include arguments presumably raised in the filings. I think all of those articles (the de facto docket reports) ought to be deleted or redirected elsewhere. I assume that if you get the authors' consent, no one would have a problem merging all of them. Cool Hand Luke 17:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And experience shows that agreement of the editors of articles surrounding Gitmo to any form of merger or redirection will be through right after the heat death of the universe - those who work hard to create articles within this walled garden are, in the main, incensed by the terrible injustice of it, and not wholly amenable to persuasion that any individual in Gitmo is undeserving of their lengthy article describing how their suffering differs from all the others by being exactly the same. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I don't think it's surprising or a bad thing, that Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism members tend to congregate around the articles they've spent hours researching, transcribing from court filings that even the New York Times doesn't bother sifting through, and trying to simplify everything to layman's terms for the casual reader. I think a worse thing is when "unrelated" editors happen across a particular article they find "offensive" ("Khalid bin Abdullah was accused of blowing up American military convoys over the course of three years? Who cares, having an article practically celebrates this man, we should delete it so that he is relegated to the dustbin of history!" seems to the prevailing attitude among some of the many people we see come storming through "our" articles.) It's also not very helpful to say "Here is a category of 150 articles, I think we should delete roughly 85% of them" without actually specifying which 85%. I think a lot of people in the List of NHL players: G article should be deleted...but it would be fairly shortsighted to just say "Can somebody please delete 85% of them?". Certain people work on certain corners of the project, and should largely be left to regulate and oversee themselves in all but the most serious cases. I'm not going to go yelling which The Simpsons characters biographies should be merged -- I'll leave that for the hardcore Simpsons' editors to decide amongst themselves. Likewise, I'd be loathe to go wade into the shitstorm of Azeri-conflict or Sri Lankan conflict articles and start demanding that "These Sri Lankan military commanders are not notable and should be deleted!", I assume that those who have spent the past five years devoting three hours a day to writing about Sri Lankan military commanders...can police themselves and decide amongst themselves what is and isn't the best use of project space. In short, I don't see how this is possibly an "administrator" issue -- if you truly have strong feelings on seeing the articles merged... please come join us at Wikiproject:Terrorism and start some discussion on the matter; you may find many of us agree with you...don't just cry for Mommy to come tell Bobby to do things your way. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There are 486 articles in Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from September 2007. Since these articles have no one interested in maintaining them enough to have taken the tag off in the past year and a half, wouldn't make sense to take the path of least resistance and deal with low notability articles that are not being maintained before moving on to the ones you are aware that people are working on in an organized fashion? Or is there something else you have a problem with in the titular category besides the low of notability of many of the articles?--BirgitteSB 02:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

and if you do that, you will find that at least half of those article probably do meet the notability guidelines, though almost all of them need improvements. What Wikipedia needs is people to make those improvements of neglected articles--that we abandon articles after the first editor loses interest is not the way to build an encyclopedia.

I was planning to give a detailed explanation of the inappropriateness of the attack on this group of articles, but Sheruji has done better than I could have. Perhaps ultimately these will be merged with articles on each of the individuals, but there is no great rush to do this--rapid mass actions are usually unfortunate. Let's first see what happens to the cases. we're NOT NEWS, and can move carefully and deliberately, with prior consensus at appropriate places. DGG (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, half of 485 is still greater that 115 ;) I hope no one seriously thinks that I was suggesting the backlog be approached without care because it lacks active maintainers. Because I expect people to have care with everything they do, but at the same time the backlogs need raw attention above of all else. Even if someone is just focusing on the least notable articles and ignore the one that need improvement. Or even if they went through and removed the tags from those that are obviously notable. There are many of things that could help short of systematically improving each article in the a category. Sometimes I just pick out the top articles from the middle rows of a backlog to work on for a day.--BirgitteSB 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I intended not to limit your remark, but rather to extend it and specify it a little further. You and I have the same ideas in how to deal with these articles. I was just afraid someone might interpret a little wrongly. DGG (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I did specify which 110 articles I thought were problematic: the ones that are not about Supreme Court cases.
2. I'd be very happy to have 90% of the hockey-player and garage-band articles gone. For whatever reason, Wikipedia has decided to exempt those articles from WP:N requirements, and it's pointless for me to beat that dead horse. I can't even get an AFD passed on the one-line biography of Beauty Turner, an article sure to be abandoned as an orphan as soon as the AFD closes.
3. I saw these articles going through the 30-day backlog at New Page Patrol, so please don't complain that I'm working on the wrong backlog. And I don't see them being worked on in an organized fashion: they're sloppily written, inconsistently formatted, inconsistently titled (actually, as of noon today, they are all mistitled and need to be moved), filled with WP:SYN, legal errors and Wikipedia style errors, and essentially indiscriminate collections of mis-written docket entries like "On 13 November 2008 Schuyler Livingston filed a "CONSENT MOTION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS" on behalf of Mohammed Nasser Yahia Khussrof (ISN 509) in Civil Action No. 05-cv-1429 (RMU)" which wouldn't even be encyclopedic if the underlying case were notable and the motion had been filed by the reanimated corpse of Clarence Darrow in a case involving Osama Bin Laden's poisoning of the Eastern Seaboard's water supply. Actually, worse than indiscriminate collections, because they violate WP:NPOV in that most do not acknowledge a single government brief or argument.
4. The implicit suggestion that I shouldn't try to improve Wikipedia if someone might complain about it is pretty appalling, actually. That creates a very perverse incentive for editors to be as obnoxious as possible to get their way. Too, I note, that your argument works both ways: there are 567 stubs of SCOTUS cases. Why focus on habeas cases that are going to be mooted by an Obama executive order in the next couple of weeks when it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic?
5. All I did was ask for advice on how best to raise a concern about 100 articles at once. I didn't ask for intervention. In response, I have a suggestion to go to the terrorism project, and perhaps I'll do that if I get a free moment this weekend, though I'll likely ignore it until February. THF (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the short answer there is no practical purpose in a raising a concern about 100 such articles. You either work on them yourself or you don't. The backlogs are huge with no noticeable progress being made. These are just a drop in the ocean.--BirgitteSB 04:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think many of the cases and the persons involved, by themselves, are not notable, but sometimes, notability comes from a gestalt of information. Thta's why I favor merger of some of the information, e.g. Zaid v. Bush. It will take a looooong time, per DGG and Sherurcij, to sort through these 155-485 stubs, and take them "one article at a time." I made some suggestions already about how to do this more efficiently ( at WP:AFD and WP:PM), but efficiency is relative; see time management. We may need to discuss this more to get a modicum of consensus, heat death or not. Perhaps the Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism is the best place to start on this. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TFH, I don't think any serious contributor has a problem with you, or I, or anyone else, raising our concerns, so long as we do so in a fair way, that complies with policy, common sense and common courtesy. I don't think anyone is trying to get you to stop trying to improve the wikipedia.

You asserted that only the cases that reached the SCOTUS aren't "problematic". No offense, but I suspect you would not have written this if you were more fully informed about some of the other cases, like Parhat v. Gates? Hozaifa Parhat was the only captive whose DTA appeal ran all the way to conclusion. Or How about Sliti v. Bush -- Muhammad Hamid Al Qarani, who for the last several years was the youngest captive, was recently ordered to be freed due to his habeas petition. His judge ruled that the US had captured this 14 year old boy based on nothing. The allegations against him were amazingly flimsy -- like that he had been Abu Qatada's lieutenant, in London, in 1998, when he was an eleven year old schoolboy, who had never left Saudi Arabia. Senior DoD spokesmen, hinting at classified info, tried to defend this bizarre claim. Judge Leon found nothing to support it.

You ask: "Why focus on habeas cases that are going to be mooted by an Obama executive order in the next couple of weeks when it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic?" Would you argue that we shouldn't cover slavery, in the US South, because Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation? Of course you wouldn't. Slavery remains an important part of US history, even once it was outlawed. Exactly how far are you going with your suggestion we halt our efforts to provide meaningful, comprehensive coverage of Guantanamo related topics, because you think Obama is going to render them moot?

Let me remind you, their cases aren't moot yet. Realistically, if Obama were to sign an order closing the camp today all these cases would remain worth covering.

1. Some of the captives are going to remain in US custody, even if the Guantanamo camp is closed.
2. As the release of Bismullah this week shows, the Bush administration failed to determine which captives were innocent bystander, victims of mistaken identity or false denunciations; which were ordinary combatants who should have been accorded POW status; and which were combatants who seemed to have stripped themselves of POW status by committing a war crime. Obama may feel he has to order the US military to redo making this determination all over again, from start, this time complying with the USA's Geneva Convention obligations.
3. Almost all of the captives who were set free remain saddled with the determination that the USA considers them "enemy combatants".
4. These cases are the first step for former captives who want to sue the USA for kidnapping them.

These cases will remain important, no matter what Obama chooses to do. And why am I working on them, rather than some other topic that you, personally, think would be more valuable? Because the topic interests me. I think it is important. And I want to understand it more fully.

Forgive me for pointing this out, but I don't think what you have written is internally consistent. You would be totally correct to resent if other contributors tried to order where you made your contributions to the wikipedia. But when you question my working on this topic because "it's clear that several experienced Wikipedia editors find them problematic" -- isn't your comment exactly the kind of order you thought you perceived, and you resented? I am an experienced contributor too. And I expect wikipedia contributors who have a concern over my contributions to engage in reasoned civil dialogue, without regard to whether they consider themselves more experienced than I am, or less experienced; and without regard to whether the community has entrusted them with administrator authority.

In your third point you expressed some vague criticism of these articles. I'll acknowledge these articles would have been a better if I had tried to create fewer in the time available to me, and spent more time on each one. But if the topics remain worthy of coverage, they remain worthy of coverage, even if the current instance of the articles need work. I do my best to followup on every serious, civil, specific concern I see expressed about my contributions. I followup on some of the vague or rude concerns too. If you are really serious, I would appreciate you being specific about your concerns. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1. If your best argument for preserving individual articles is the content-less article Parhat v. Gates, you prove my point quite nicely. It's poorly written, filled with WP:SYN redundant with a few dozen other articles, provides no context, and somehow fails to discuss what the D.C. Circuit ruled, the Supreme Court's rulings on the case, or the current status of his case. But it does have a prominent link to an entirely non-notable motion for a protective order. There is no link to (the equally incomplete and poorly written) Kiyemba v. Bush, which the case has been subsumed into. This article manages to simultaneously exalt trivia while ignoring what's most important about the case, omits the case citation, and neither you or the article does anything to explain the case's notability, or why it should be analyzed separately in its own article, rather than as part of Parhat's article or as part of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 article. THF (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As we discuss, life moves on, see Judge halts Gitmo trial. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so. And we now have 100+ out-of-date articles, as opposed to one centralized article that, with the same amount of effort, could have been high-quality and easily updated. As it is, all those "Bush"s in the titles are outdated. THF (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I think those cases will retain "Bush" in the case name as that is the name under which they were filed. – ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not for a habeas case. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). THF (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• THF, I am doing my best to engage in civil, meaningful dialogue. And this would be easier for me if the other people here refrained from the use of inflammatory language. I am going to repeat my personal request to you that you make a greater effort to be collegial.

• I am going to repeat one of the points you avoided acknowledging, clarifying, or refuting. You seemed to be expressing the view that other contributors were trying to order you around. I agree you would be totally justified resenting if other contributors here tried to order you to work on topics in which you had no interest, or to stop working on areas you were interested, with vague justifications. Yet you are suggesting I should stop working in this area because "...several experienced Wikipedia editors have a (vague) concern." I don't think any wikipedia contributor has any obligation to halt good-faith efforts they believe comply with policy merely because someone tells them their contributions are triggering unstated concerns for "several experienced Wikipedia editors".

• You and I are both totally entitled to our views of how the topics of these articles should be covered. You have given some vague hints as to how you think it should be covered. No offense, but I find your hints of your views are too vaguely expressed to be useful starting places for a discussion. And, frankly, I find your language too inflammatory and adversarial to be a good starting point for a collegial discussion.

• I wonder whether you would consider either (1) making the effort to lay out your view more specifically, in detail, backed up by an intent to listen to the views of other contributors, and a willingness to compromise -- or (2) put your concern on hold until you have the time and energy to give the topic the fair, civil, consensus-building attention it deserves?

• My experience with discussions in WP:ANI is that the regular participants here are not likely to think this is the appropriate place for a detailed discussion of how these topics should be covered, and would appreciate that discussion taking place elsewhere. Sherurcij and Bearian suggested that the detailed discussion be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism. Is there some other place you think would be a better place for that detailed discussion? Geo Swan (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's true that we can't make volunteers work on topics they don't care for, but you surely see that many of these articles have no independent notability—certainly not from the prisoners themselves. Given Obama's presidencty, your rationale that these suits "might" blow up is not just a crystal ball, it's probably a broken crystal ball. At this point, doesn't it seem prudent to figure out how to incorporate non-repetative and useful information into other articles? THF has already agreed to the suggestion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism; he was only following another suggestion to bring the discussion here in the first place. Cool Hand Luke 01:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Has anyone thought of transwiki to Wikisource or some such? I don't think anyone wants to destroy a lot of work, it's just that this really does seem to be outwith the scope of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

CoI violation blocking (above)

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Take it up at the policy talk page. –xeno (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite resolved. This raises the need for an exception to be written into the WP:ADMIN policy—specifically the WP:UNINVOLVED bit, which says, inter alia:

If a matter is blatantly, clearly obvious (genuinely vandalistic for example), then historically the community has sometimes endorsed any admin acting on it, even if involved, if any reasonable admin would have probably come to the same conclusion.

However, it's very poorly worded, even if it almost certainly covers the situation complained of by the vandal above. "Sometimes" is a problem; the poor admin acting in such an example is beholden to a "sometimes"? And what is a "blantly, clearly obvious" matter? Vandalism is given as an example, but really, the scope of such matters is loosely cast and needs to be tightened up: what else, apart from vandalism? Such improvements to the policy wording are needed when people try to game the system here. The "sometimes" needs to be binned and admins need to think of what situations should be included. Vandalism is a no-brainer, but are there any others? I will link to this from the admin policy page; further comments there? Tony (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Death threats and other threats of violence. If an editor threatens to kill me or to harm me I block them immediately, "involved" or not, since it is never, ever, ever acceptable. I'd also add WP:NLT to the list, though I've rarely been threatened that way and people have always blocked before I got to them, rendering the point moot. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 12:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO adding examples would not help, as there is always the example we didn't add - you cannot cover everything - leaving the poor admin in the same boat as before. I'd simply say blatant vandalism or even clear vandalism and leave it at that. I have blocked a lot of blatant vandals on Abortion, and it wasn't death threats nor threats of violence - it was stuff like replacing the article with ABORTION IS MURDER AND ALL YOU MURDERING BITCHES ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL kind of vandalism - IIRC, I usually gave one BV warning then blocked when they edit warred to keep it in, as they often do. I edit Abortion; I think its on my top 10 although that's due primarily to the afore-mentioned vandalism to the darn article. So am I violating COI? I never thought so before, and don't think so now. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Killer Chihuahua, my watchlist has a number of articles which are vandalism magnets, and for which I have blocked vandals, without thought to a CoI. This edit is an example, and it's ludicrous to think that blocking an editor after such an edit constitutes a CoI on my part. "Sometimes" should be removed outright from the policy, but something quantifiable may need to be added to provide cover for admins doing the right thing, without giving them carte blanche to run amok. (No, WP:IAR is not a good example; it's cited far too often as it is.) Horologium (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that "sometimes" implies "just this once if you're lucky" and a better term would be "generally". We have to make a reasonable distinction between blatant vandalism and a conflict of opinion in normal editing. The hard line about looking for a third party to deal with someone making this kind of edit looks particularly absurd when the current arbitration enforcement system seems to give the admins using that system the power to block editors they are having personal disputes with, and to ignore advice from other admins. . dave souza, talk 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I took the word completely out while we discuss it[4] link provided for editing convenience if others disagree or wish to tweak per dave souza. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony - I strongly believe that explicit wording (either an exception or denial of an exception) is needed. However, what is the difference if this was an IP vs this being a named user? Since there is most likely a difference, how can you explicitly make it clear? We do have noticeboards to report vandalism to. We also have noticeboards about protecting pages. Are admin allowed to protect their own pages? Semi or full? Are they allowed to delete pages they create? Are they allowed to block IP vandalism on pages that they created and spent a lot of time on? Are they allowed to block named vandalism? I think we should seriously come up with answers to these questions. Many admin run for RfA stating that they wish to use admin tools in areas that they work on, which could allow for a CoI problem. Sure, those like Graham deserve to use admin tools and the Medical articles need extra admin to watch them, but where would the line be drawn if he started using blocks or protecting Medical pages that he directly added? I use Graham as a recent example, but I respect Graham and I don't believe he will be problematic, so keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to be glib, but this is pretty silly. The policy says (and the community supports) that administrators shouldn't use the tools in content disputes. maliciously reading WP:ADMIN to mean that administrators may not block users who vandalize, threaten or blatantly disrupt pages is tendentious. The position that I would have to send an editor (named or IP) who vandalizes my userpage to AIV is downright absurd. Also, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest refers to outside interests impacting decisions made on wikipedia, not personal interests clouding judgment. Protonk (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just because one person didn't want to drop the issue until the thread was archived doesn't mean we have to change the policy to clarify something that almost everyone finds perfectly clear as is. Mr.Z-man 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maliciously? And "blatant vandalism" is never really blatant except in a few cases. And what makes you more special than everyone else that has to go through AIV? We have processes for a reason. Why the fear of them? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV is not a set-in-stone-required-for-vandal-blocking process, just as an RFPP request is not a requirement for protecting a page. They're pages for people to don't have the admin tools to request that someone who does have the tools can use them. Its not a "fear" of process, its just a desire to avoid going through process for process' sake, wasting other people's time, and possibly giving the vandal more time to vandalize as a result. Mr.Z-man 19:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maliciously. Your peculiar fixation on J. Delanoy's blocks of vandals offers an extreme example. You chose to read his reversion of vandalism on his user page as a "content dispute" of the highest order (on the strained logic that he is maximally invested in the "content" of his userpage)--and as a result came to the conclusion that his ability to issue blocks rested at a minimum there. That is a perfect example of a malicious reading of the texts available, WP:ADMIN, WP:BLOCK and WP:UP. As for AIV, it is a streamlined process designed to bring blatant vandalism to the attention of administrators who can then dispense with it very quickly. As a consequence of the process, AIV works under relatively rigid rules and deals with only certain kinds of vandalism. Less obvious vandalism (or, alternately, more dangerous pagemove vandalism) will not usually be reported to AIV, the former because AIV is not the proper venue (AN/I or the talk page of an active admin can be better used to discuss the vandalism and determine a response) the latter because notification is superfluous. Even further, not all disruptive editing is taken to AIV (or other noticeboards). If I see someone edit warring on an article and they appear to be aware of 3RR (either through received warnings or a past block), I won't send it to AN/3 (or whatever it is called now)--I'll block the account or protect the page myself. We are not a bureaucracy. The fact that these noticeboards and channels exist does not necessitate their use, especially where their use is redundant. This is not a fear of process but an understanding of it. Protonk (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to reread WP:AGF, especially seeing as how I am friends with j.delanoy and that you seem to not understand any of the facts of the case. The very fact that you seem unable to follow basic aspects of civility is troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's great that you are friends. I saw as much when I read the thread above. Nowhere did I imply that you don't like him or aren't friends with him. I only said that blocks like his (where he blocks a vandal without warning or without consulting another admin) were perfectly acceptable and that conflating "reversion of vandalism" with "content dispute" bordered on tendentiousness. I'm also not aware of what "basic aspects of civility" I am supposed to be "following" in this discussion, so you'll forgive me if I don't have some response to that. Protonk (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Your use of the term "malicious" suggests that I have an evil intent against j.delanoy. Seeing as how I brought it up here, not ANI, did not ask for him to be blocked, censured, etc, and am friends with him, all suggests that such characterization is blatantly incorrect. Furthermore, what is at issue is the vagueness around when admin are allowed to block on their own pages and pages they heavily deal with. There are contradictory statements about, and use of terms like "sometimes" and the rest give an assumption that cannot be deemed correct. I personally do not use blocks in regards to pages that I have ever worked on in any project, and the only time I do block is after discussing with other admin, having clear consensus towards it, and doing so when there is no other option. When you have to deal with people like I've had to deal with, you have to hold yourself to the utmost standard or they will just try to use it against you. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My use of the term malicious referred to the first word in the phrase "Malicious compliance", which was wikilinked from malicious in my first post. The phrase refers not to evil intent but to the habit of following rules even when they fly in the face of common sense. I really, really, don't see how this is anything but open and shut. If an administrator is in a content dispute or a personal dispute with another user, they don't use any of the buttons. That should be clear to any admin out there. The ones who violate that rule are flouting accepted community standards. However, "Content dispute" is not the same thing as "editing a page ever". I could go so far to say that "content dispute" only applies to some cases where an editor is vested in page content--not all pages I edit are edited heavily enough to the point where I would consider myself "involved". The line where "involved" or "vested" begins is fuzzy and resists definition. We can't write a reasonable line into policy using any sort of metric--edits per months, percentage edits, etc. Each numerical metric runs afoul of the purpose of WP:UNINVOLVED, which is to ensure that administrators don't privilege their content changes or act out of an emotional response when using the tools. I am not "uninvolved" at 3 edits/week and involved at 4 edits/week. Words like "sometimes" and appeals to reason are going to abound in policy pages in those cases. Even acknowledging the imprecision of the policy, I can stand by the statement that vandalism and the like can be exempted in any case. I edit Adam Smith. If someone comes along and writes "Adam Smith is a fuckhead" multiple times, I don't feel the need to gut check my involvement on that page before blocking him. Any policy proscription forcing me to avoid responding or report the editor to AIV is insane and should be ignored.

As far as your personal standards are concerned, that's fine. Everyone is welcome to operate under stricter standards than expected by the community. Don't, however, confuse those standards you keep for community expectations or goals. Protonk (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• An admin blocking a run-of-the-mill vandal who vandalizes their page is not a conflict of interests. –xeno (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The canonical example of a problematic involved block is a block for violation of WP:NPA or WP:CIV when a user insults the admin directly. Blocking is problematic in that case because the admin, as the target of the remarks in question, is not the best judge of the seriousness of the attack. (I believe an ArbCom case last year found this to be an inappropriate use of the tools, although I cannot recall the specific case.)

However, blocking for vandalism is a different matter. Replacing a page's content with obscenity is always vandalism. There's no plausible good faith interpretation of the action. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

So if Richard had blocked the vandal that made this edit you think that is a problem? Or do you mean the more non-vandalistic "You're an idiot admin because you blocked/protected/etc..." NPA/CIV violations? –xeno (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like that fits "Replacing a page's content with obscenity is always vandalism" perfectly. My guess is that Sheffield wouldn't have a problem at all. Protonk (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. –xeno (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just my two cents here. I wouldn't have any problem with a block in that example, if there had been a history of other vandalism, preferably with a warning or two. If that's the first case, I'd rather not see the victim be the blocker because it could just be a one time (admittedly highly inappropriate) venting of frustration. Full confession -- I've only blocked someone who vandalized me once, when they vandalized my user page after a final warning from someone else. Another final warning seemed silly, and the vandal was clearly on a scorched earth spree.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we really having this whole conversation all over again? --barneca (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to add some value. For me, the guideline is good enough. I understand it to mean that the dividing line between good and bad admin actions is whether they're based on subjective or objective evaluations of the conduct in question. If other admins' opinions vary wildly, perhaps we should adjourn to WT:Administrators and discuss improvements further. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume that we've done the little dance

• Phone Call to Putin (AfD discussion)

This is just to notify you that I've tried to get everyone to short-circuit an almost needless round-trip through Deletion Review. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Best of luck getting people's focus out of the bad-faith bin on that one. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Another AfD after only 4 days? I've speedily closed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is time to look at curtailing non-admin closures somewhat? I'm not sure we should be snowballing AfDs in less than one day after four keep votes. It kinda stifles debate. Resolute 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing to see here. Discussion can continue at DRV.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• If that is your rationale for yet again closing a no-consensus AFD discussion out of process, without letting it run for the full 5-day period, then that was an exceedingly thoughtless closure on your part. It wasn't as if I didn't explicitly spell out the fact that the prior AFD discussion was closed improperly and didn't run for anywhere near the full period. So now we have a second AFD discussion closed far too early and where there was no clear consensus (as was obvious from the first AFD discussion, which was explicitly closed as "no consensus"), without letting a proper discussion occur, but by an administrator this time. And as I said would otherwise happen, Deletion Review is in the process of overturning your early closure and sending the article back to AFD for a proper, full-period, discussion.

  I suggest thinking harder about such closures, or at the very least reading the discussions that you close. With your thoughtless action, you've caused the very round trip through Deletion Review, and back into (as is obvious from the DR discussion, and as was obvious even before the DR discussion began) a fourth AFD discussion, that I said was avoidable by keeping the third one open (as I kept it) and actually letting a discussion run for its full period, for once.

  See what thoughtless out of process closures, steamrollering a discussion shut (a second time, even!) without letting the policy points raised by several editors be even answered, repeating the action of an out-of-process non-administrator closure that was clearly disputed and that clearly would only result in the discussion being re-opened by the people whose concerns it ignored and suppressed (because it had, once, already), and undoing the actions of another administrator, have got you? A completely unnecessary waste of time for a large number of editors, and far more controversy than if you had just let an AFD discussion where no consensus clearly exists run to completion according to process.

  As I said, this little dance could have been completely avoided without incident, and would have been, too, had AFD discussion number three been left to run properly. But now, thanks to your actions Gwen Gale, we have the incident instead.

  Please think, in future. Uncle G (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, how dare they point out that you completely did an end-run to get around DRV on this one. Especially when you pointed out on the Administrator's Noticeboard you were doing an end-run. Look, I'm not slave to process myself. But this was a pretty bad way to go about fixing the problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your constructive input. Have you ever noticed which Wikipedian is the best at rescuing crap articles on good subjects? Draw up a short list of ten and if it doesn't include Uncle G then I will eat my hat. His commitment to good content is, in my view, beyond question. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, AfD 3 was wholly tainted because it was out of process and was loaded with "speedy keep" comments echoing this. Instead, straight off, I closed AfD3, watched the new discussion at DRV and then asked the editor who closed AfD 2 to relist it, which has been done. Discussion now abounds at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phone_Call_to_Putin_(2nd_nomination), where it should have carried on to begin with and has again now for almost 2 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Spoilers on Wikipedia

Hi,

Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place. But I am wondering if anyone could tell me what Wikipedia's policy is on including Spoilers in creative work? I strongly believe that articles should contain spoilers (Wikipedia Is Not Censored), but I see many articles don't contain these and if I add them they get removed as spoilers.

Sorry if this is the wrong place, if it is please could you advise me of where it'd be better to post?

Thanks. --144.82.242.53 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right Wikipedia is not censored - where are your additions being removed from? please provide the names of the articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER for Wikipedia's policy on this. "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, Wikipedia:Lead section)." Tan | 39 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's more of a guideline than a policy. Remember that at one time, spoiler notices were commonplace. Majorly talk 18:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't see a connection, the removal of spoiler notices was just that, the notices, not the content --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And at one point there were even spoiler warnings on Titanic (film) and The Passion of the Christ...o_0 -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Without seeing diffs, it's kind of hard to say what's going on. It's true that Wikipedia is not censored and we don't remove stuff because it's a spoiler. On the other hand, we often do remove plot details simply because excessive plot descriptions are not appropriate for most (some would say any) encyclopedia articles. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

and in fact, its the other way round. if we do not cover the entire plot, we are not providing encyclopedic coverage. WP is not for the sort of plot summaries that go in tv program guides, and movie trailers. Many of the articles on the plot of fiction--especially the combined episode ones--i would say err in this direction-- encyclopedias by their nature provide detailed coverage of their subjects.

At present, the consensus is therefore firmly that the insertion of spoiler warnings in not appropriate and even, by labeling the content, a form of censorship. I recognize that can be an opposite view, but we need to accept things like this as settled, not reargue them indefinitely. DGG (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DGG, did you write what you meant to write? "...that the insertion of spoilers in not appropriate"? I suppose (hope) you mean that spoilers are perfectly acceptable and should not be removed, and that labelling them as spoilers is a form of censorship which is not tolerated? Fram (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

you are quite right, I did indeed mean that putting in spoiler warning is now considered inappropriate (though previously accepted before we realized how inappropriate it actually was) --and of course, removing material which tells how the story turned out is even more inappropriate-- and I think nobody thinks or ever did think thatthis a good thing to do ever.. Thanks for noticing my error, and I fixed the wording. DGG (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Plot warning.png

Obvious detail is obvious

There also the fact that spoiler warnings were extremely dumb. I mean, just look at the image to the right. People should inherently know and expect that "Plot" sections will discuss the plot, and "Character" sections will discuss characters, even ones whose appearance may be considered by some to be a "spoiler". But yes, removing content that someone considers a "spoiler" is not permitted simply because it's a direct violation of WP:NOTCENSORED, let alone WP:SPOILER. --.:Alex:. 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But this does not answer the really important questions: (a) who is the fifth Cylon and (b) what the hell does the fifth Cylon mean anyway, since I've not watch the new Battlestar series at all. Inquiring minds need to know! Guy (Help!) 11:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(S)he is back...

User:78.145.166.159, who was banned this week, is back. (S)he just reverts and reverts, while discussing the changes on the page history - and that's not the way to do it. Can I please get some help here? Surtsicna (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3rr. Is there another account? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I strongly believe that User talk:78.150.10.38 is the same person as User:78.145.166.159. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe that this anonymous user is actually a registered user who decided to push his point of view without logging in. I'm sure this is true because the anonymous user is aware of some Wikipedia rules, which proves his Wiki experience. Surtsicna (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right. But there are some regular, experienced editors on Wikipedia who never create accounts. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User war spawns random AFDs

Can one or more uninvolved admins take a look at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT rights in Benin. When trying to figure out why this was put up, I started looking at User:Aurush kazemini who nominated it. This appears to be part of some ongoing argument between whomever User:Aurush kazemini actually is, User:TastyCakes and User:SmashTheState and his friends. Frankly, I don't care if they get along, but they appear to have branched out to starting deletion debates just to score points off one another. I won't be following up on this, so no one need contact me on the outcome. Thank you. T L Miles (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I closed the AfD as a snowball keep. I'm happy to expand on my thought process if necessary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Need protected redirect created

Can someone please create a redirect from WP:GRAWP to the newly restored Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis? I tried, but there appears to be a block on page creation at this title (presumably due to blacklisting). *** Crotalus *** 17:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I redirected it to Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Grawp instead, feel free to retarget it if necessary. Ideally both the page and section can be consolidated, and the redirect point to there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also fully protected it, with a title like that it is too juicy a target for him to ignore and it would end up protected sooner or later anyway--Jac16888^Talk 22:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

Hello, I would like improve two templates:

• Template:LSR
• Template:LPR

Can you unlock these templates?

I started a dialogue User_talk:Melancholie#Template:LSR.2Fsyntax_and_Template:LPR.2Fsyntax

Thanks in advance — Neustradamus (✉) 03:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Image of Obama

Resolved

 – Problem was at commons, and the very capable admins there took care of it.

Hey, I have looked and I cannot find the source of the problem. Someome around 12:20 or so (UTC) today, on several of the Obama-related pages, his image was replaced by one of a gorilla. I did not witness this, but there were several complaints about this, all around that time. I have looked at a) each article b) the picture file here that is in question: File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg, c) the version of that picture hosted at commons d) the template the pic was hosted in and I CANNOT seem to find where any of these were edited to make it the gorilla. Could another admin look into this, and see if they can figure out how it happened? It appears to have been changed back, but I just want to know WHAT page to watchlist to see that this doesn't happen again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There's at least one other place to check. --NE2 13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably more template vandalism. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read Jayron's comments and go to my link again. --NE2 15:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you NE2. It looks like it was a determined commons user who was creating the problem. If I read it correctly, it looks like the pic at commons is currently indefinately protected, which should have solved the problem. Am I reading that right, NE2? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the vandalism revisions were deleted, which is why you didn't see them. --NE2 19:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Internal mediawiki search - not for user talk?

Hi, can someone check out User talk:Tvoz? He She copied the code I just cribbed from the noticeboard headers here after I put it on Talk:Barack Obama to make everyone's life easier, but it won't work on his her user talk. It works fine on the Obama talk, and obviously here. Is it not set to pick up User talk somehow? I'm stumped. rootology (C)(T) 05:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz is a she.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops! rootology (C)(T) 06:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Apparently the prefix parameter can't handle spaces. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. rootology (C)(T) 06:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Zekistan AfD

A quick look at the Zekistan article history reveals that it went through AfD last year and was closed as a 'redirect to bigger article'. My dilemma is that an IP editor has come along recently and turned the redirect back into a stub, thus starting the cycle again. So what do I do? Undo the IPs edits? Let them stand? Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted back to the redirect, there was nothing in the recreation to suggest a full article was valid or to reassess the previous AFD decision which was clear that a full article was not merited here. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting siteban

I'm not really sure whether this will do any good, but I'd like to request a formal ban of AlexLevyOne (talk · contribs) and his never-ending succession of block-evading sockpuppets. An initial ANI thread about his problematic edits is viewable here; and since he was indef blocked, he's just been carrying on under a series of new guises, some of which have been dealt with in these SSP cases:

• WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne
• WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(2nd)
• WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(3rd)
• WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(4th)
• WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(5th)
• WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/AlexLevyOne(6th)

The problem is that he abandons an account as soon as it's identified and creates a new one, usually before the slowly grinding mills of SSP/SPI can take any action. Recently he's been editing as X.69 (talk · contribs) (already abandoned) and Dinamyte (talk · contribs). It's my understanding that socks of a banned user can be blocked on sight by any administrator and their edits can be rolled back without question; and if such a result could be obtained, it would certainly free up for more productive purposes the time that editors such as User:JohnInDC, User:Mayalld, and myself have been spending in trying to identify each new sock, deal with its screwy edits, and get it blocked. The editors on the French WP have had similar problems in dealing with this fellow, whose original account was apparently named Albion there; isn't there some way of making it so difficult for him to continue that he'll just give up? Deor (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Any user whom no administrator will unblock is banned by default, so... not a whole lot of point to this that I can tell. We might be able to look into an IP Rangeblock, which would make things extremely difficult for him, however that depends on what sort of connection he has, what IP addresses he's editing from, and the level of other activity on those IPs. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a checkuser run last October (which I can't seem to locate in the archive), which concluded that a block of the range of his dynamic IPs would cause too much collateral damage. Deor (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As Deor points out, the only real way we have to deal with the guy is to go through the sockpuppet process, but that takes several days at least, and can be as long as several weeks. I don't blame the admins who review the requests - they are obliged convince themselves that the account really is a puppet - but it's pretty inefficient given that those few of us familiar with the guy can spot him after, literally, about 8 or 10 edits. I would really prefer a way of blocking this fellow ahead of time (I am tired of policing him) but if that's impossible, is there a way to speed the process on the back end at least? JohnInDC (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Need help unblocking user

Resolved

I just blocked a user for edit warring, thought he had violated a 3rr/warning, but when he asked about it realized that i misread his edit history, and tried to unblock him. He says that he now can't edit, and I can't figure out what I need to do to get him unblocked. The user is User talk:DegenFarang. If somebody can take a look and let me know why I can't get him back on his feet that would be appreciated.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was the autoblock. I see that you've removed that and the problem should be solved. Oren0 (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it out after I posted here, but he didn't respond to me before I had to go to bed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 14:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Handlrich

67.244.75.51 is User:Handllrich's IP. 67.244.75.35 -- this IP is making contribs very similar to the first IP mentioned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#weird edit history possible massive article disruption. Also, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#User:Handllrich. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

ChaCha (search engine)

Just to let other administrators know, I've come across a rather nasty web of self-promotion surround the above article, and related articles such as Bostech Corporation. I've had to G11 some of them which were completely unsourced and seemed to be written by the head of marketing of the company. There's a lot of SPAs editing the ChaCha article, so if anyone think it deserves a CU, please let me know and I'll request one (or you can pitch in and help!) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing—bad images

Resolved

 – Indefblocked by seicer.

Slykide17 (talk · contribs) is uploading a ton of images with no information (most are obviously copyrighted) and is ignoring notices placed on his talk page. Can anyone suggest a course of action? I'm getting tired of tagging each image as it is uploaded. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted them all, rolled back the pages, informed the user on his talk page. He's only 11 according to his userpage so we'll give him a chance. Black Kite 14:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wiped his user page as it contained information that... is generally not advisable to release for a minor. seicer | talk | contribs 14:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have continued, with the upload of File:IrfanAjanovic.jpg and the creation of Irfan ajanovic. - auburnpilot talk 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible block-evading agenda account

Will Beback's pronouncement ("people aren't blocked here because they have an unpopular political belief or get into content disputes") might be plausible, were it not for the fact that he and Jayjg are famously partisan in the relevant disputes. Now, if they wanted to appear non-partisan, they could block two actual, well-known sockpuppets that happen to share their POV, those being Janeyryan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(see diff) and John Nevard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)(see diff), but is that going to happen? Nah.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.47.228 (talk • contribs) 00:57, Sep 20, 2008

Wikipéire

Wikipéire has been a serial sockpuppeteer on Ireland-related articles ever since his indefblock in May 2008. He has implied that he will continue to do this here. Enough reason to give him the "banned" label, I'd say. SirFozzie already declared him community banned here and here. Unless someone objects, he will stay that way. Cheers, theFace 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's likely to unblock, and serial sockpuppetry is a de facto ban. Let's not get too hung up on semantics, the user has been shown the door and is no longer welcome here. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually ArbCom have been contacted about this so there's nothing definite about the ban yet. They shall be making a decision whether to confirm the ban or perhaps reinstate Wikipéire with conditions over the next couple days.78.16.107.182 (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And of couse, here's Wikipeire. Just can't leave it alone. SirFozzie (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have given him what he obviously wanted - a block on the IP address. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai

Unresolved

 – Gwen Gale unblocked and imposed basically the same restrictions that Raul had originally. She was very clear as to the scope and nature of the restrictions. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Silk can mark this resolved when needed. Discussion continues below. Protonk (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Following this discussion Manhattan Samurai was blocked. Raul654 did a probationary unblock on the basis that Manhattan Samurai was doing good work on Is Google Making Us Stupid?, with the restriction that editing could only take place on Is Google Making Us Stupid?. Manhattan Samurai violated the restrictions twice within 24 hours. Raul654 gave a final warning. Manhattan Samurai has violated three more times since then: [5], [6], [7]. I have now restored the original block. SilkTork *^YES! 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the diffs, those are pretty tame as disruptive edits go - a welcome message, a user talk message asking for feedback about Is Google Making Us Stupid?, and a reversion of a bad test edit (arguably vandalism). I'm torn between saying that SilkTork is overreacting with this block, and agreeing entirely with the block message's comments - essentially, that ManhattanSamurai is trying to game this restriction. This certainly looks like a recipe for high drama on AN (and perhaps WR too)... but whose recipe? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The probation was exceptionally clear on what he was and was not allowed to do. He violated it twice in less than a day, and was told that any further violations would result in a block. Since then, he's used his talk page to request others make edits for him (tolerable, but clearly a violation of the spirit of the probation). Given the recent edits, which were outright and indisputable violations of the probation, the only conclusion I can draw is that he is intentionally playing games to foment as much drama as possible. I concur with the re-block. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(EC)The edits are completely harmless, agreed. However, if you're unblocked on the condition that you don't do something again, you shouldn't do it. Doing it in small increments as a test case to see if anybody's watching certainly seems like gaming the system. Agree with the block, especially with his recent talk page comments. Dayewalker (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That assumes the probation conditions were somehow valid. Who put Raul in charge of telling editors what pages they're allowed to edit? This probation was not helpful or rational in any way I can see. That said, this guy is an obvious troll who never should have been unblocked to begin with. So, I don't agree with the reasons for the re-block, but I can't really disagree with the outcome. Friday (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much my take after reviewing his history, I'm unhappy with the process but not greatly concerned with the outcome. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm 'involved', having had issues with MS before, but I noticed this thread in my watchlist, and did a bit of poking. User:Freakin incredible looks suspicious to me. He comes on four minutes before MS, makes one edit to the page, then about 10 minutes later gets welcomed by MS? any chance this is a setup for a sock? ThuranX (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Freakin incredible is almost certainly not a sockpuppet of MS, according to checkuser. Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, great. Thanks for checking Raul. I saw one edit, suspicious timing, and wondered, that's all. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• While I think the topic restriction itself was within the realm of the community to impose, I'll repeat my earlier request that it be lifted partially. It doesn't serve us to say "you may only edit pages XYZ" on an encyclopedia of 2 million (or so) articles. We would be much better served with some sort of civility restriction (derided as they are). MS should be able to edit any pages he feels necessary but should refrain from pointy disruption, aggravation of other editors and general misbehavior. To me, that makes more sense than just unblocking him for "is google making us stupid" or whatever that book title is. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm usually as grumpy as Friday about troublemakers, and often agree with him, but not in this case. I disagree with this reblock, and pretty much agree with Protonk. Manhattan Samurai's sarcasm and... extreme irreverence, let's call it... are sometimes indistinguishible from trolling (and his actual honest-to-God trolling on the ThuranX ANI thread, in the face of warnings, was clearly unacceptable), but IMHO it often leads to over-reaction as well. I understood Raul's reasons for the parole, think it was within admin discretion, and agreed with it at the time, but I've come over to Protonk's point of view. It doesn't make sense to reblock indefinitely for 3 good edits; he hasn't been disruptive since the unblock. The first diff was being kind to a new editor; the second diff above is directly related to his article and doesn't even count against him; the third diff is reversion of some rather extreme vandalism in an article he's edited and cares about. Also, if I'm reading his talk page right, Chrislk02 told him a few days ago that constructive edits on another article wouldn't violate his probation, so assumptions that this was intentional flaunting of the rules might be misguided. All in all, he's being blocked not for disruption, but for disobeying the rules. I'd prefer an unblock, a repeal of the old conditions, and new conditions along the lines of:

  If you want to edit here, don't be disruptive. Any more. Ever. Even if you're not doing it maliciously, it's disturbing numerous other editors. If you aren't sure if something is disruptive, err on the side of caution and don't do it; there are many people who want to see you indef blocked. Stay completely away from ThuranX. Stay completely away from WP:ANI and WP:AN. Otherwise, feel free to contribute constructively anywhere else.

Unblocking now would have the added benefit that Smith Jones (a friend of his) won't come along in a few minutes yelling about the injustice of it all. --barneca (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is worth bearing in mind that we are blocking an account, not banning the person behind the account. The person behind the account is free to create another account, and in that one, having learned the lessons of this one, to usefully build the encyclopedia without "playful" disruption, personal remarks, and time-consuming and wearisome system-gaming. I think we need to be clear that good edits do not allow and excuse disruption. Disruption by otherwise decent editors is wearisome and drives people away from the project in frustration. This account has been and continues to be problematic and time-consuming. The account has been warned, and concealed the warnings, was blocked, and then unblocked with conditions which the account broke, was warned, and broke again. It is not helpful to anyone to keep issuing warnings and then saying, oh shucks, OK, one more time, and one more, and one more... Enough is enough. Let's get on and build the encyclopedia. SilkTork *^YES! 08:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• This was disruption to make a point. The restriction was unambiguous, and pushing the boundaries is immature and unacceptable. No, they are not free to create another account, that would be block evasion. If they really want to edit Wikipedia then they should not play silly buggers with us. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some off-wiki coordination between MS and other users, who according to checkuser aren't him, despite similarities in editing. This happened in the Alan Cabal AfD(s) as well. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
    • There is something fishy going on. I also thing MS was intentionally pushing the boundries just to make waves (WP:POINT). I support this block. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• Wait, what? We block the human, not the account. If we block someone for 24 hours, they are not free to come back during that 24 hour period (presumably because they would continue the disruption that we hoped to stop). Indefinitely blocked users are not free to come back under any account name. If they do come back and forgo old editing habits entirely, we might never know, but that usually doesn't happen. Protonk (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Protonk on the nature of blocks. And, IF people go with Barneca, his proposal needs the added caveat, NO Alan Cabal related editing either. MS has a POV about the guy, and his editing is disruptive there too. That said, I've got inolvement with the guy. ThuranX (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd support an unblock along the lines of what barneca's wrote. Coincidentally, he's asked for an unblock on these conditions. –xeno (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• I would support an unblock under those conditions as well (in case that isn't clear from the above). Protonk (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• I would absolutely oppose an unblock at this point. This user has consistently shown that he is here only to stir up drama, with occasional good article edits. From his attempts to drum up an 'edit war army' to the behaviour which resulted in the topicban, and then the blatant gaming of the topicban, he's shown he's not here to contribute in any meaningful way. Barneca says that it "makes no sense to reblock indefinitely for 3 good edits," which is a bit peculiar since we reblock editors for violating editing restrictions all the time, whether or not the content of the edits was constructive or not. Further, the proposed condition by barneca (If you want to edit here, don't be disruptive. Any more. Ever.) has been made crystal clear to Manhattan Samurai on more than one occasion, and he continues to deliberately disrupt the project. I say we wave goodbye. If MS wants to vanish and come back with a new username and a new attitude, fine, there's basically nothing that can be done about that. But for him to be topicbanned, flout the topicban, and have the restrictions eased makes no sense whatsoever--it is walking down the very same "We mean it this time, honest!" path that frustrated so many people when it came to dealing with Betacommand. The bottom line is that MS was topicbanned within admin discretion, refused to abide by the topicban despite warnings to do so, and now we are discussing having fewer restrictions on his disruption??? Come on. //roux   19:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A note on the resolution of this. While I don't think that per page restrictions make as much sense as "don't be a dick" restrictions, they have the added benefit of being much easier to enforce. I'm marking this as resolved. Protonk (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan Samurai not resolved

Not yet resolved. I'm asking Gwen Gale questions about the unblock. I'm a little unclear on her reasons for doing so when there wasn't consensus for an unblock. My feeling is that the issue should have been discussed here first, and now we are left with what appears to be an awkward fait accompli in which there would be more drama created by blocking Manhattan Samurai again, and the consensual community spirit in which Wikipedia operates has been slightly eroded. The point of the original block was that Manhattan Samurai is the sort of user who creates this sort of time-consuming and draining drama, and it would be better to stop the account to show clearly that we don't want such behaviour. The first unblock by Raul was unwise, and this one is even more unwise. This is exactly the sort of thing the original block was intended to avoid. Anyway - what I'd like now is some idea of what to do next. I suggested to Gwen Gale that as she did the unblock that she mentor Manhattan Samurai for a year to see that he doesn't get into trouble. But she has declined that. I don't wish to be the one who looks over his shoulder, especially as I've already dished out one block. Is there someone willing to keep tabs on the guy? SilkTork *^YES! 01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wholly support Silk's block. As the unblocking admin I'm keeping very close tabs (not the same thing as mentorship, which I don't have much faith in), no worries there. I think MS understands the restrictions now but, as I wrote in the unblock notice, even if he still misunderstands, an indefinite reblock will be swift if he strays from the bounds he's been given. Moreover, the restrictions don't automatically lift in a month, he must ask for this to happen. Given the worries brought up in this thread, I most strongly suggest that, if MS somehow makes it through the next month without getting re-blocked, the restrictions be lifted only by consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I welcome Gwen keeping tabs on Manhattan Samurai - though I would like confirmation that Gwen's scrutiny would extend for a significant period beyond one month. I suspect that Manhattan Samurai will cause trouble again when he feels that he is no longer being observed. His past behaviour has revealed him to be sneaky and manipulative - so I would welcome an overview of 12 months. SilkTork *^YES! 13:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The terms of the unblock obviate the need for a mentor. If we unblocked him on the terms I suggested, we would want a mentor. As it stands, all we need is someone to make a mechanical determination about which pages he has edited. If you have an idea as to how MS is going to cause drama affecting the rest of the project by editing that short list of pages, I'm all ears. I don't like MS very much. I've tangled with him before and I agree with Thuran that the agitating during Thuran's AN/I was totally unacceptable. That said, we should be willing to turn the other cheek. Reblocks are cheap, users are scarce. Protonk (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's when the restrictions are lifted in one month's time that I was thinking. Gwen has said on the unblock notice: "If you indeed "go straight," which is to say, stay within Wikipedia policy and heedfully abide by these restrictions, after maybe a month you can ask to have this restriction lifted and it will likely happen." While reblocks are cheap, the tracking down of disruption, especially by a user who has a history of manipulating others and of concealing his disruption, is not. But I suppose what will happen will happen. SilkTork *^YES! 16:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Doppleganger accounts

Resolved

 – The doppleganger names are too similar to the user's name anyway, so it is impossible to create them without an admin-override... The userpages are unnecessary and were deleted by MZMcbride per U2 –xeno (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After getting this message on my user talk, I think I need a bit of assistance squaring matters away. Can I get some assistance, please? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm..., yeah. It seems that none of those three accounts actually exist... are you sure you created them? Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 02:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can delete the userpages if you don't feel like actually registering the accounts. –xeno (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not just create them? Protonk (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried that, they're too similar to his username, which is the whole point. I'd do it for him but haven't got a toolserver account so I suggested he try going through WP:ACC--Jac16888^Talk 04:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, I would register them, if for no other reason that to protect myself from impersonation. After MzMcBride deleted them, I cannot register them. It's odd, but the ones that were deleted, like (Arcayne) and (Arcayna) are showing as is use - as my Doppleganger accounts. The other two are coming up as too similar a name for set up - and that's fine, since that means that no one outside of an admin can set up the account either. Frnakly, I don't care either way; I don't need it, I just don't want anyone else to grab it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh. I get it. Hmm. Protonk (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I must be either too tired or too much of a Luddite to get it: Doppleganger accounts are set up to prevent someone from impersonating a feller. I thought I had already set these accounts up the same way one does with a normal account. I think ACC is for requesting an account name. Is that what I should be doing? I am not trying to be thick here; I simply am having trouble understanding what I did wrong when I initially set them up, or how to fix the problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You never set them up in the first place. They are too similar to your username to be setup by a malicious user. Move on. –xeno (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Flagged protection

More comments and thoughts regarding "Flagged protection" would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For the third time...

User:78.145.166.159 is back for the third time. User:78.145.166.159 tried to replace Infobox Royalty with Infobox Person in Peter Philips article, but when that change got reverted by another user, User:78.145.166.159 reverted all my changes of other articles (such as Lady Gabriella Windsor, James Ogilvy, etc). This is getting really annoying. Surtsicna (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a further week, and I shall rollback their WP:POINTy edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have further blocked the block evading ip User:78.145.252.183 for 31 hours after they appeared on my talkpage to note their presence. If the editor is going to jump ip's I didn't feel the need to enact an extended block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

A minor historic value of Middle C

Resolved

 – I have copied this message to WP:WikiProject_Music/Noticeboard where knowledgeable editors will hopefully notice it. This does not seem to be a something that administrators should look into at this time. If he reverts too much report to WP:3RR. Thanks. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

At the Talk:Music theory#Middle C = 256 Hz page, there's a discussion of whether to give prominence to a minor historic footnote about one proposed value of middle C which didn't gain enough traction to become a worldwide standard in the 19th century when it was suggested, let alone the 20th century and now. The article about Pitch (music) describes many historic values of Concert A including the one concerning this difference of opinion: A 430.54 which yields a middle C of 256 Hz. The Music theory article is currently being used as a brief description of concepts and a directory to other articles that go into further detail—mention of one single alternate value of A or C isn't appropriate there. User:Another Stickler continues to place the information in the music theory article despite discussion and reversion by other editors. Please join the discussion at Talk:Music theory#Middle C = 256 Hz. Binksternet (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Central guide for outside en.wp tools?

Resolved

Not really an admin issue, but an easy/quick question. Is there a central page listing all the "en.wp tools" like Kate's tools, and this, this, and others? There's a certain one I'm thinking of whose name I can't remember, that was similar to kate's tool, but a bit more dynamic in it's generation (lots of expandable fields, more details, etc.) rootology (C)(T) 17:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Does {{UsefulLinks}} help? Otherwise, searching [8] for "useful" may be useful. --NE2 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Darn, its not any of those. It was very slick in presentation, with a white background, pie charts... I'll have to keep looking. Thanks, though. rootology (C)(T) 17:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Try this. Majorly talk 17:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Was it this, perhaps? Deor (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bingo!! Thanks! I added it to {{UsefulLinks}}, thats the one. :) rootology (C)(T) 17:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:TOOLS is a centralised list, although that on isn't on it. --Stephen 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I Have a Problem

Resolved

 – IP blocked. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing research and editing a Wiki page for a couple of months now. It is called "List of United States inventions and discoveries". And after doing so much hard work with citations and photographs, a user keeps unneccesarily unediting the page, thus I have to revert the page back to it's previous version. This person deletes large chunks of the entire page. Other users have noticed the same troublemaker. Is there anything we can do to stop him?

Their user I.D. number is 78.144.227.243

Please help. Assistance is greatly appreciated.

--Yoganate79 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a standard vandal. Seeing as you brought it up, I'm currently editing the article, fixing the formatting (please don't use dozens of hard returns to create whitespace) etc. //roux   18:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I only deleted what LOTRurles had deleted. I checked out the linked articles and they contradict what you have written. 78.144.227.243 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think 78.144.227.243 may need a time out. Deor (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a permanent time out. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP was blocked already - for the record, we generally do not block IP addresses indefinitely, as they have a tendency to change ownership frequently. Chances are, the person on that IP address yesterday has already moved elsewhere. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Smallville page

{{resolved|Page semi protected for 3 days. --'''[[User:Tone|Tone]]''' 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)}} Sorry, Tone, it's not resolved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Could I get some administrative assistance on the Smallville article. 66.166.86.114 (talk · contribs) has been constinually changing the configuration of the cast list to reflect the "current" cast. Per WP:RECENT, he is given undue weight to the actors that have only been on the show for a single season, and pushing asside ones that were there for 7 seasons. From an historical perspective (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be written from), it inhibits the value of those actors that were with the show from the beginning and only left recently. I have left several messages on the IPs talk page, both explaining about recentism, and asking them to present their arguments on the talk page if they disagree so much with the order of the cast. The IP refuses to acknowledge my requests and just blindly reverts back their changes (even when they are adding duplicate information - there are two actor/character sections on one character). I didn't take this to the vandalism page because it wasn't straight vandalism, but I think some Admin interference is necessary given the fact that the IP is ignoring all requests to go to the talk page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute at Smallville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); good-faith editors have a dispute over the appropriate structure and placement of the cast list. Both parties have been making their arguments mostly through edit summaries, and neither has made any use of the article talk page (Talk:Smallville). Bignole should be credited with leaving two brief messages on the IP's talk page, but his second message was just an instruction to the IP to go to the talk page, coupled with a threat of administrative action and an implicit assumption of bad faith.

I am very concerned about the use of semi-protection here. The dispute was only a few hours old, neither party had made any serious attempt to lay out their position on the article talk page, and – Bignole's accusation to the contrary – there was no indication that either party was participating in bad faith. Neither party was doing harm to the article; this is a dispute over style.

I don't think it's appropriate to use semi-protection here to privilege the registered editor(s) over the unregistered one(s). Neither editor has violated the 3RR, and this isn't some long-simmering dispute. (If there were an otherwise unresolvable edit war, the correct course of action would be to block all the offending parties, to fully protect the article, or both, as necessary to restore calm.) Semi-protection is used to deal with ongoing floating-IP vandalism, not to close off content disputes between good-faith editors. The protection policy expressly forbids the use of semi-protection here:

Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes.

I will lift the semi-protection and warn the involved parties shortly, unless there is a good argument – grounded in policy – for me not to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking a bit deeper, I note that the page Bignole cites in support of his action – WP:RECENT – is just an essay, not even a guideline. I also wonder whether it might not be a bit of a stretch to read WP:RECENT as specifying the appropriate order for a list of television show cast members — is it recentism to list cast starting with the current ones and working backwards? I think this really is something that needs to be hashed out on the talk page, and both parties need a good trout slapping for edit warring over something this trivial. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with TenOfAllTrades. This isn't an obvious IP vandalism but a content/style dispute and hence doesn't warrant semi-protection just to shut off the IP. The IP in question should be encouraged to engage in discussion on the article's talk page and stop continuous reverting. If s/he continue the behavior, it is obvious that they are about to violate 3RR and should receive appropriate action should the situation arise. ^LeaveSleaves 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I was thinking about several options in this case and in my opinion it seemed best to use the semi protection in order to stimulate both involved parties in the discussion on the talkpage. I am aware that this is not a standard use of protection and since there are concerns, I agree that it should be lifted. In fact, WP:recentism is not the guideline that suggests the content, I believe this is one of the suggested guidelines of the TV project. In any case, I suggest both parties discuss first before engage in another edit warring. --Tone 21:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Given Tone's agreement, I'm lifting the semiprotection. I think that the parties here all need to get over to the talk page, as both the IP and Bignole are on the cusp of a 3RR violation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport

Can someone help sort out Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport and Saint-Exupery International Airport? The rename may be correct, from what I can see from a quick Google search, but it needs help. Thanks, FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It needs a history merge. In future, you should tag the article with {{histmerge}}, and consider listing it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen if it's complex - an admin will then come along and do the business. I've tagged it as such. – Toon^(talk) 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Abuse requiring attention

Resolved

User:Cosialscastells has posted [9] some abuse at User talk:Wiki-Ed that goes well beyond what is acceptable here at Wikipedia. I am removing it from his talk page, but I would urge a block. This is completely unacceptable language. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the language is unacceptable. He needs to learn to spell "diarrhoea".--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Warned him, but that's about all needed. Grsz¹¹ 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ - the user has now logged out and has continued to vandalise [10] from his IP. If you are in doubt that it is the same individual, check the similarity of the edit histories. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Account indeffed, IP blocked for 31h. Black Kite 02:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Foxy Loxy

This is a notification to all interested parties that I have accepted a nomination to join the Bot Approvals Group - the above link should take you to the discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

IRT Second Avenue Line article creation

Chckmtechmp138 (contribs, talk) is creating a ton of stub articles about the IRT Second Avenue Line in New York. The articles all have one citation, and perhaps some are notable (though likely better as a list), but all are very short and poorly formatted. I've tried to contact the user on his talk page and ask him to stop creating articles until he has learned about formatting, but he's not responding. What do people suggest as a course of action? FlyingToaster 05:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm copying the above to WT:NYCPT. --NE2 08:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Severe personal attacks bordering on vandalism

After 71.59.189.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did [11] [12], I give him a final warning for vandalism [13], to which his response was [14] [15]. Kralizec! (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), apparently believing that these edits were actually a good-faith effort to improve Wikipedia, declined a report on WP:AIV. Even if the edits were good-faith severe personal attacks, was I wrong to report them on WP:AIV for immediate attention? Was my use of rollback to revert edits like [16] [17] a legitimate use of the tool? Am I just being overly sensitive in finding [18] [19] to be grossly offensive and block-worthy? The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Cirt (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As I noted [20] at AIV, certainly the IP was being rude, but rudeness is not the same as vandalism. Other than blow off some rather incivil steam on his own talk page, the IP appears to have taken heed of your "final warning" and stopped vandalizing. As per WP:BLOCK, we block for preventative reasons, not punishment. If we do not block punitively, how could I block the IP after he obeyed your warning and stopped adding crap to articles and/or other editors' talk pages? --Kralizec! (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So [21] [22] is just good wholesome "blow[ing] off some rather incivil steam", not meriting a block? I doubt that many admins would share your view of this situation. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 05:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well he's set up an account now...— Realist² 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you changed topics on me. I thought we were discussing vandalism. Your block request was made at Administrator intervention against vandalism. When I pointed out that the IP's edits to his own talk page were not vandalism, you quoted [23] the official Vandalism policy to me. I never denied that the IP was rude or uncivil; I said it was not vandalizing any more. And for the 44 minutes your report was on AIV, no other admin was willing to block the IP for vandalism either. As the notice says at the top of the page, AIV "is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only," not personal attacks. Those sorts of issues are generally better dealt with here or at AN/I. --Kralizec! (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, it seems unproductive to draw a hairsplitting distinction between severe personal attacks like [24] [25] and "actual" vandalism, then reject reports at WP:AIV based on which side of that dim and uncertain line edits are deemed to fall. The notice on WP:AIV is there to prevent editors from reporting complex issues requiring discussion instead of the "block and remove" format of WP:AIV, not as an invitation to wikilawyering about the definition of vandalism and quibbling about proper choice of forum. The Nordic Goddess Kristen ^{Worship her} 07:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

AIV can get very backlogged and need to have reports processed very quickly, so us patrollers do tend to decline reports that do not meet the conditions laid out in the page headers - even when the workload does not appear high, because by the time you have hit save a couple of reports may have been added. Personal attacks, as Kralizec! says, are not vandalism and might require the more considered opinions at AN/ANI to determine if this is an ongoing problem, a matter for RBI, or something that can be ignored (and ignoring the attacks in the meantime while it is being looked at is exactly the right response). Cirt blocked, which is also the correct response IMO, in response to your report here. Although WP:NOT#Papershuffling is a very sensible policy guideline, disregard for using the appropriate avenues for problem resolution will very quickly lead the admin functions into a morass with the result that violations will go uncorrected - and that is a far worse scenario. Lastly, received personal attacks are something of a badge of honour; it often means that you have upset someone whose aim was to disrupt the encyclopedia and since they are not able to repeat the violation without incurring penalty they take out their frustrations on the custodian... Anything that stops disruption to the project is a good result, and personal attacks can be regarded in that light (although it does not mean they need be tolerated). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Urgent editprotected request

Resolved

 – Change had consensus, editprotected has already been declined and does not have consensus. Template talk page is the right venue.

Guy (Help!) 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

[copied from ANI]

A recent change to a sub template of {{Coord}} causes many tens of thousands of articles to emit broken microformats. Please see the editprotected request at Template_talk:Coord#Non-consensual_changes. (The change was non-consensual, but I'll be taking that up separately; the more pressing matter is to repair damage). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• The talk page seems to show that there was indeed consensus, but with you and one other in disagreement. Since that matter is already under debate on the relevant talk page where your {{editprotected}} request was declined and you are currently in a minority of one in demanding reversion, I am marking this as resolved. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • As clearly stated above, this is not about the non-consensusal change; but the fact that the template is currently broken Pigsonthewing
    • Can you supply some evidence of that please. -- Theresa knott
      • Evidence on {{Coord}}'s talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I can't see what you are talking about. Can you spell it out here. What exactly is the problem? Theresa Knott | token threats 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
          • (e/cs) Template talk:Coord#Non-consensual changes. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL you guys crack me up. So if something's obviously broken, but there's no "consensus" to fix it, it has to stay broken? Hahaha -- Gurch (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is it's not that obvious to me, and as you guys can't be bothered to spell it out I'm outta here. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given you a link to a short discussion section, which has a concise description of the problem, and sample code. I'm working on other things while dipping in here, and don't have time to repeat things I've already said. Sorry if that seems unhelpful. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And in that discussion you are apparently in a minority of one; you have also reinstated the {{editprotected}} template at least three times after it has been declined. The fault is not obvious to anyone, the discussion shows that, so when you have consensus, use {{editprotected}}. This board does not exist to give satisfaction when you are not getting your way elsewhere. Incidentally, where have you spoken to Docu about this? I notice that Docu is a user with whom you have a long-standing dispute, something you forgot to mention here. The change appears to have been amde after discussion, so it is wholly reaosnable to go first to the admin who made the change. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While there is disagreement over the non-consensual nature of the changes, both sides, and all parties, including the author of the revised code, agree that the template is currently broken, and needs to be fixed. It also appears that the change is not the same as the code in the test examples given. Since the template is on many tens of thousands of articles, the fix should be applied as soon as possible. Previous interactions with Docu are not pertinent to the current, broken state of the template, so why should I have mentioned them? Did he mention them when prematurely closing the debate about the change? Why have you not declared our previous disagreements? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Andy Mabbett has reinstated the {{editprotected}} yet again, which takes him up to WP:3RR. It's not even that template he wants edited. Would someone who he will actually listen to - if any such person even exists - please tell him to stop being a jerk. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 

    Firefox's Operator extension, showing the geo microformats broken by the edits to Coord's sub-templates on 25 January 2009

    This section has been improperly marked as resolved. The request is for changes to more than one sub-templates of {{Coord}} whose talk pages redirect to the parent template's talk page. If that is not the correct place to make such a request, then why were the disputed changes, also requested there, made? Wikipedia's credibility is harmed by the emission of broken metadata (as illustrated), and it is also harmed by the tardiness of our fixing that problem. Ad hominem noted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A favor, please

I am User:Dylan620. Due to WikiBreak Enforcer, I am locked out of my account until February 1. But that was a mistake; I meant that to expire today. Could an admin please remove WBE from my monobook.js? Thanks! --72.70.120.233 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done —kurykh 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that didn't work. I tried logging in after bypassing my browser's cache, but I was automatically logged back out. What should be done now? --72.70.120.233 (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Set your computer clock to February 2, or disable javascript in your browser. – Toon^(talk) 00:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for image undeletion: Image:Chefboyardeepic.jpg

I would like to have the image Image:Chefboyardeepic.jpg undeleted. It was a screen capture of Ettore Boiardi in his Chef Boyardee whites from a television commercial in the 1950s. It was originally deleted for reason of "No justification given for fair use for more than seven days". Fixing this is straightforward. I would make this request of the administrator who deleted the image, but his talk page states that his computer has had a power supply failure and his recent account activity appears to be solely bot related. Thank you. — VulcanOfWalden (talk) 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored. --Carnildo (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't revert vandilism

User 143.117.157.60 has done several vandilism edits on Flixborough disaster, I tried to undo the first one to go back to the version of GrahamHardy of 16/12.08, but I get the error message "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits.". Please Assist. Ronhjones (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the vandalism for you, just clicked on Graham Jones' edit and "saved" my edit. Not sure what caused your error however. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You. I was just using the "undo" link. I see what to do in future. Ronhjones (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Knol as a reference

• Hello, i don't know, whether this question was asked before or not, i want to use a knol article as a reference, is it possible?
• Also, since forums are considered a reference here, an article in any newspaper also, is more of an opinion than a real reference.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by لطيفة العمورية (talk • contribs) 16:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Knol appears to be a tertiary source, so it's inadvisable to use it as a reference. Of course, if a Knol article has cited its sources, you could investigate those sources instead. See WP:Reliable sources for more information. A forum would not normally be considered a suitable reference here as they lack editorial oversight. Marasmusine (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a Knol article has the same status as a blog or a personal website: It can be used only in some specific situations, such as:

• To source a statement about what the Knol article itself says. (In the rare cases where that is noteworthy, e.g. after the New York Times discussed the Knol article.)
• The Knol article was written by an established expert on the subject you want to cite it for.

As to newspapers, it depends on the type of article - most quality papers distinguish clearly between reports and opinion pieces. Reliability also depends on other aspects. E.g. it would be very inappropriate to quote a rural Chinese newspaper for a claim about Queen Elizabeth II that hasn't been reported elsewhere, but clearly appropriate to cite the New York Times about a car accident in New York City (supposing it's worth mentioning). By the way, it's probably better to ask this kind of question at WP:Help Desk, since it doesn't really concern admins all that much. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would also be wary of using any user-edited site like Knol, but WP:RSN is probably the right venue. My experience with Knols is limited, the only one I know in detail was written by a topic-banned POV-pusher in the hope if finding some other way of fixing the real world when he was stopped fomr using Wikipedia to do so, so you could call me cynical in that respect. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm with guy. I can save you the trip to RS/N, tho. Knol, despite its claims, is just like any user edited resource--not a reliable source for wikipedia. Tack on the number of people who try to push a POV here, get stopped and "take their ball and go" to Knol, where you can write whatever you want without fear of review and you have a bigger problem. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, accordingly:

NYT reports: a man was hit by a car. (It's a reference)

Wikipedia sucks. NYT columnist (An opinion, a reference)

I think, the first subject is just a mirror of facts that happened, the second like the rest here, just OPINIONS. Thanks. --لطيفة العمورية (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unban proposal for [email protected]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to WP:ANI here for greater visibility, per agreement. Please followup there - Alison ^❤ 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fuck you arnold palmer

Can someone please explain to me how two different admins managed to come to the conclusion this wasn't speedily deleteable? It might not fit the exact letter of the CSD criteria but I expect admins to be able to apply common sense and IAR when it's a no-brainer. It's now on AFD and will sit around for 5 days when it's actually complete and utter bollocks - what a waste of time. Exxolon (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would possibly even suggest that it is speedy deletable simple because the name is a bit of a BLP nightmare. Based on content, it should go through AfD - I'd argue we should IAR here because of the name. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite funny; I was expecting to come here and give a rant about WP:SNOW or similar but actually there isn't a speedy criteria that that article falls under (even with a liberal view of WP:CSD) Unfortunately, XfD is the right method as any speedy delete would certainly be overturned on appeal. Perhaps we should give the creator a medal for the worst article that is really hard to get a CSD for ;) I understand the frustration. GDonato (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone's gone for G10 (looks like that applies to titles now) ;) GDonato (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree; deleted and AfD closed. Note - edit conflict x4, CUT IT OUT; page deleted prior to GDonato's remark. Tan | 39 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was interpreting the CSD criteria narrowly: others will differ. I was not arguing necessarily for inclusion, just that I didn't see it as appropriately proposed for deletion. It didn't quite make G10, to me. I try not to make a habit of IARing speedy deletes, as it's a slippery slope. Acroterion _(talk) 18:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was leaning just a bit the other way, enough to let me fall on the other side of the fence. If you sit back and look at the article with a non-policy-riddled eye, it's obvious it didn't belong here. Tan | 39 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that we need an A7 for things. We have people, bands and web content, but some stuff is blatant but doesn't fall into a category. --Smashville^talk 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if one looks at the name alone it would seem to be a slam-dunk. However upon reading the article, this appears to be the name of a non-alcoholic drink. Which puts the matter into the grey area -- do we delete it because of the offensive name, or do we try to keep the content because the drink may be notable? Well, we have articles about this word, & this one, so censorship alone shouldn't enter into things. (And with all of complaining in recent days that Wikipedians are too enthusiastic about deleting articles, I bet both of these Admins decided to err on the side of caution & not speedy it.) Then again, are all drinks notable? If not, how do we determine which ones get included & which ones are excluded? (There's another drink with a similarly obnoxious name -- "A slow screw against the wall you dirty motherfucker". Sorry, I have no idea what it tastes like. My preferences in hard liquor nowadays ends with straight bourbons; I've been interested in fru-fru drinks.)

In short, if there is two sides to any argument expect that at least one Admin will take the side you disagree with in good faith. Some Admins can shrug over a difference & move on; some can't. The trick is to make it as easy for anyone who might disagree with you to decide to live with being mistaken -- not to be humiliated because she/he was wrong. -- llywrch (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Same sex marriage userboxes

Resolved

 – DRV closed. — Jake Wartenberg 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can a bold editor close and relist this has it meets the requirements for closing and in this case relisting? There seems to be a handful of admins who are parties to the Mfd and/or DRV and I guess no one wants to close it. 16x9 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Slowpaced edit warring

On the John Keats, Leigh Hunt, Percy Bysshe Shelley, etc articles, there is a slow paced edit warring going on by User:Dovereg. A user wishes to add his own personal website. There are two links being added: www.johnkeats.org and http://www.freewebs.com/dovereg.

Why am I bringing it up here? Well, it could go to 3RR, because of multiple readding across many pages. However, there is also an IP that is probably the user's or related to the user's (24.128.30.124) that keeps adding in the same item. So, this could go under a Check User request. The pages could also be protected, but it seems like it is a stable IP. The user name (Dovereg) is also listed on the second website that he is listing, which makes it seem like it is a CoI name. It promotes the user's own poetry, POV, and has little of critical quality. So, it seems like this could be taken to half a dozen places to be honest. This is nothing critical right now (as it is extremely slow paced), but I think administrators should know about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the other party to the edit war. I'm not sure a checkuser is really called for. It doesn't seem as if there is any pretense that the Dovereg isn't the same user editing under the IP. I don't think the user knows about 3RR. I, on the other hand, do. Though I stand by my assessment of the site, I probably could've handled the situation better. Proceed as you feel is necessary, but I'm not sure I want to involve myself further. It's become too much of a distraction. Dancter (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you have done anything wrong, to be honest. The site from a cursory glance seems to be a personal website and the soap potential is rather blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Though the slow pace rules out a conventional 3RR complaint, spamming is blockable in its own right. I have left final warnings for both Dovereg and the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

This is Dovereg the supposed 'offender',and firstly I will say that I will not attempt to add the links mentioned above any more. But I want to voice my opinion, and reasons. Ottava Rima , who are you to judge that a site has "little of critical quality?" The site a whole book on the life and works of Matthew Arnold, for one thing. Personal poetry is a very minor part of the site in question. There is no "soap" involved, period. The site was previously linked from Wikipedia for quite some time without a problem, before it was removed. So I added it because as it turns out Dancter was removing it, though I did not know then who was removing it or why. There was no malice on my part in doing this, and as I said, I will not do it again. Dovereg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC).

I can show you my work here dealing with criticism, or I can have people vouche for my real life credentials in the field of Romantic poetry. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock 4.138.53.0/25

I have rangeblocked these addresses belonging to Level 3 Communications Inc. for three hours due to multiple IP vandalism on Carolina Forest High School. Trusilver 08:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Latin Europe

Resolved

 – Moved to RFCU instead. This is going no where as usual so here we go with a full case instead. EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! There is somebody who edits from different ip-adresses and permanently disrupts the article Latin Europe. I also tried to talk to him, but it was useless. I suppose it is the user Yorkshirian because the location seems to match with him. The article Latin Europe should be at least semi-protected. --Olahus (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

That's Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs). You might want to ask a check user to look for any socks since he is back (or more likely never really left). The IP and topic area is a clear match. Now excuse me while I return to my post-Wikipedia life. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting postulations. Well for starters, several socks of both Yorkshirian and Iamandrewrice appear to be linked, making it probable they're one person anyway - so there's no need for me to deal with each accusation separately (especially for as far as I can see, the Yorky account never touched this article).

But more to the point, User:Iamandrewrice appears to have spent hours upon hours constructing a massive table in the article, and arguing avidly against its deletion on the talk page - yet I deleted it - would I really do that if I was truly the same user? 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, the edit warring has stopped on the page, and appearingly-constructive discussions are now running. 78.147.130.29 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't prove anything. What proves this is the fact that you are disrupting the same article from the same IP range as Iamandrewrice. You have a history of trying to fool people, engaging in long debates against established consensus and common sense and claim that unrelated users are your socks. If it quacks... EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And now we have Eukariota (talk · contribs). It begins again... EconomicsGuy (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So according to you, I'm trying to fool you by deleting work that "I" spent hours creating and fighting for? Of course that is entirely logical. *Rolls eyes*.

And the Eukariota account - this was made in order to edit commons (as this is not possible by IP) - no attempt was made to distinguish myself from the IPs.

I'm not entirely sure of your history with the user, but perhaps you'd find it more helpful if you took it to someone who looks to have had extensive experience with them. Eukariota (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You sure know a lot about Iamandrewrice for someone who has nothing to do with him. You know that Alison was the CU who did most of the work identifying the socks despite the request not being linked to anywhere on Iamandrewrice's user page. You also claim to be able to tell that Iamandrewrice and Yorkshirian may be sharing socks yet you know nothing about Iamandrewrice and simply "accidently" walked straight into the same article from the same IP range. Your sole defense rests on you deleting something that anyone could delete. It proves nothing. What proves this is the striking simularity in IP range, choice of article and disruptive editing style on the exact same pet articles. You fooled me once, you're not fooling me again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you heard of something called a google search? Ok, let's have a look at the article after Iamandrewrice's last proven sock wielded his antics there: [26], and the article before he touched it: [27]. Then look at what I turned the article into. I really don't see what editing similarities you could claim between us. I basically undid everything he added. Your "evidence" for us being the same person is that we are editing the same article from similar IP ranges. I hope you realise millions of people across the British Isles share the range? As before, please question Alison if you still hold doubts - what is talking about it here going to do? Eukariota (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep logging in and out? If you really are a good faith user you should stick to using your account rather than switch between the account and new IPs. As for contacting Alison I don't need to - your IPs were disclosed in the checkuser request due to the severity of the disruption. You fooled me, you fooled Jeff for even longer and you aren't getting away with it again. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't keep logging in and out. I was on my IP, and then when I wanted to respond to you, I logged back in so you'd be able to identify me. Like I said, the IP range is completely insignificant, as literally millions of people will be covered by it. I also would like to remind you of WP:NPA. I notice you seem to completely ignore my points - sorry but I'm done with this conversation now. You have what? - five edits to your name, all of them here. WP:SPA much. Eukariota (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't keep logging in and out. I was on my IP, and then when I wanted to respond to you, I logged back in Right... that made sense. Totally. If you Googled the checkuser request you already know who I am... my name appears several times on the request. Coincidences don't happen. You didn't accidently start editing the same article as Iamandrewrice from the same IP range, you are Iamandrewrice. Banned means banned, not sneak back in when you think no one is watching. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an impartial look at User talk:YellowMonkey#"Soapboxing account"

I found this indefinite block and several others to be out of line, since the users in question had only ever edited talk pages and seem merely to express opinions on the article rather than editing it. Not only is this not disruptive, but it seems not to be a valid blocking reason, and certainly an indefinite, warningless block of a new user strikes me as an abuse of admin powers and a degree of jadedness about the proper channels. I would appreciate any input. Andre (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was involved in the discussion with Spinnaker gybe (talk · contribs) at Talk:World War I which was the editor's only contributions and led to them being blocked (I'm also an admin). I agree completely with YellowMonkey's actions as this editor was nothing but a troll and appeared to also be a sock puppet (note this edit where this brand new user with no edit history started referencing guidelines and policies and, most damningly, referred to User:Oberiko's troubles at the World War II article which took place in June and July last year and led to User:Oberiko withdrawing from Wikipedia in July - only an established editor would be aware of this). The editor was directed to appropriate avenues to advance their complaints at Talk:World War I but failed to take any of them up. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but agree entirely with the block. Account seemed to e nothing but a troll - endlessly complaining, citing reams of guidelines (suspicious for a supposed newbie) but doing absolutely nothing to actually fix the alleged biases they believed were in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't involved with the situation, but it looks like User:Spinnaker gybe was spinning circles on the talk page and arguing for the sake of arguing (in the vein of: these are the Wikipedia policies that this article breaks, repeated ad nauseum without without editing the article, or in some cases even clarifying to what he was referring). I disagree with the description of his behaviour as merely expressing opinions on a article talk page. -- Samir 08:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"Soapboxing account"

From talk page of YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering what you meant by this in your block of User:Spinnaker gybe. I am not familiar with that as a valid blocking reason and I am unclear as to how this user was being disruptive. I am not going to unblock without consulting with you, but my current feeling is that this user should be unblocked. Please let me know. Andre (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a few other examples of this block reason in your recent contribution history. It seems that in several instances you have blocked users who have only ever edited talk pages. How this is disruptive I fail to understand, and certainly an indefinite block with no warnings is a gross abuse of admin powers and an example of newbie biting. Andre (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Andre (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You can see the comments right above on this page and also my posts to Nick-D (talk · contribs) Skinny87 (talk · contribs) Climie.ca (talk · contribs) and WT:MHCOORD following a request for people to look at the WWI article. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't edit articles doesn't mean you can't be disruptive; I believe YellowMonkey was acting in line. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The account was doing nothing but trolling, making a huge fuss about the article and claiming it had biases, demanding polls and citing reams of guidelines, yet doing nothing to actually change the article despite numerous editors asking it to - minutes before it was blocked, I even told it to essentially 'put up or shut up' by creating its own sandbox version of the article. I very much doubt anything would have happened had the account remained unblocked. Skinny87 (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia at step 5

Classic Internet service trajectory.

1. Inception
2. Utility
3. Popularity
4. Emergence of "regulars" or in Wikipedia's case "editors"
5. Takeover by "regulars"
6. Loss of Utility
7. Obscurity

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.129.190 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Afaik, the "regulars" have always controlled Wikipedia, so there isn't anything to "takeover". Who are the "regulars", anyway? - theFace 11:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, project reached step 5 before either 2 or 3 -- Gurch (talk) 13:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A regular editor is a happy editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It of course depends on what you consider an "internet service". Many "internet services" have been strictly regulated from the start, and there is not much sense in applying step 4 (or 5). E.g. Google, Amazon, ... have no regulars (or alternatively have only regulars, paid employees). They have so far not faded into obscurity. Other internet services which were more unregulated at the start but added more rules later one are things like Youtube (and perhaps Facebok and Flickr as well). They ahve not faded into obscurity. On the other hand, many of the major "internet services" that have faded have just been made obsolete by competitors (if you think search engine X is vastly superior to your older search engine Y, then you drop Y like a stone). Perhaps some examples of which "internet services" have actually followed the "classic trajectory" would be more enlightening. Fram (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I can't think of anything this would apply to. Perhaps its because they've all faded into obscurity, or perhaps because its made up... Mr.Z-man 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the original poster referred to various internet fora, message boards, chatrooms, discussion boards and suchlike, which originally were very open and welcoming for newcomers, but as time passed became dominated by 'established' or 'regular' users to such extent that new users no longer felt welcome there. I think Wikipedia is not at this stage yet!

There is, however, a separate and different issue; at the beginning (say around 2002-2004) the community of Wikipedians was one of highly-motivated, selfless, dedicated users who had the best of the project at heart. However, as Wikipedia itself grew, it began to attract all sorts of people for all the wrong reasons -- because it could gratify their egos, or promote their [non-notable] websites or companies, or their pet scientific theories or world-views... Well, that's the price that comes with popularity; let's hope Wikipedia will not be swamped by all the selfish attempts to manipulate it, and still remains a neutral, non-partisan, free source of information for everybody... 131.111.17.247 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That does appear to be the original poster's intended subject -- online communities. Slashdot would be one example (originally it did reflect the general consensus of the technology community, but by 2001/2002 it had become overrun by the wanna-bes & fanboys, which led to the interesting & thoughtful folk moving on.) But the dynamics of any community -- online or reallife -- is far more complex than the OP's thesis implies. (I can supply some links to discussions of community dynamics if anyone is interested.) As the Face notes above, there have always been regulars on Wikipedia; the regulars is not the problem -- if you believe that there is a problem. However, the old generation of regulars appear to have mostly moved on (except for people like me who probably should find something better to do with my time), & the new generation of regulars have different ideas about how Wikipedia should operate -- some good, some bad. In short, this is not the Wikipedia of, say, 2003/2004, & no amount of kvetching or policy reforms will change that. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup

Resolved

 – It's freaking OVER ALREADY. No admin attention required per xeno, just drop it.

//roux   18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to take this. User:Garden/WikiCup is "a championship which takes place every year on Wikipedia", where participants get points for things such as writing featured articles. So far, pretty harmless, as long as the normal standards are applied. (A different case did actually have a negative effect even there.) I'm concerned about the WikiCup's effect on did you know, a section of the main page where "interesting" facts from recently-created or expanded articles are included. However, there's no real way to apply a standard to whether something is interesting, so there is an incentive for editors to contribute hooks that are not actually interesting, simply to get points in the game. I don't know if having mundane facts in a major section of the main page is a big problem, but it's certainly less than ideal, and this game seems to be negatively affecting our main page. Can anything be done about this? --NE2 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed hooks may be denied at any time, so I don't really see a problem. Also, there was a recent lull in activity at T:TDYK, so I think the WikiCup is doing an excellent job of encouraging participation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What may happen and what does happen are not the same in many cases, including this one. --NE2 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too soon to claim you're hurt. Only three people have more than 5 DYKs, one of which is me; as I am one of the "king of DYKs", the WikiCup has little effect on my production. As of Sunday 60 contestants made 85 DYKs, only slightly more than one a person. NBD.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 17:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hurt? Excuse me? --NE2 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3)Let's see, you've already tried to delete this, if memory serves. And now you're forumshopping to ANI? Take a look at the editors involved in this game which--this really bears repeating--is simply a fun way to make a concerted effort to improve Wikipedia content. Can you point to DYK hooks that have been nominated due to the competition, and passed to the main page, that shouldn't have been? You are aware, of course, that the DYK process has not changed and that any hooks proposed by anyone in the competition must go through the normal verification and approval process?

I have a much, much better idea: go away and do something else. The Cup is only trying to improve content, and nothing more. Your antipathy towards it is weird and misguided. Adding after ec: I can only assume that Bedford meant 'butthurt'. I leave it to you to Google for the meaning of the term. //roux   17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried to delete what?

My objection is that, while it may be trying to improve content, it is having the opposite effect on the main page. --NE2 17:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My bad, what you actually did was make a ridiculous WP:POINTy edit bitching about the Cup being some sort of MMORPG. I notice that you're not actually providing any links to any of these supposedly bad DYKs. Looks to me like you're just bitching about the cup (again) and finding another way to do so. Why don't you run along and go do something constructive instead, hmm? //roux   17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us specific hooks/examples? Which ones are you complaining about? Randomly lobbing accusations without diffs is going to get you nowhere... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The one I specifically noticed was this one, an error in a government database. But it has been noticed by others. --NE2 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK has had no problem putting non-interesting things on the main page before, I don't see why this will have a significant impact on that. Mr.Z-man 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It means that a participant has an incentive to take to DYK a boring fact that otherwise would not have been submitted. --NE2 17:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Boring" is subjective, first of all. Additionally, there is always an incentive to nominate DYK hooks—how has it changed because of the WikiCup? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only incentive I've had has been improving the main page by adding interesting hooks to it. Is there another I should know about? --NE2 18:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Improving the encyclopedia just in general perhaps. Majorly talk 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This has now been mentioned at User talk:Garden/WikiCup#WikiCup mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, meaning we'll have a disproportionate number of comments from players. --NE2 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AN isn't hidden from WikiCup players... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point - they wouldn't normally end up here, but roux has already shown up and started attacking me. --NE2 17:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Attacking? Hah. You have some sort of weird antipathy towards this--I'll repeat again, since it seems you missed it the first time I told you on December 23rd--friendly competition that is only trying to improve Wikipedia content. Moreover, you didn't notify anyone as to this posting, which you're required to do. You also have refused to provide links to any of these supposedly awful DYK hooks. So you're sort of.. hmm.. there's a word for what you're doing, but I'll leave it to you to figure out what it is. In any case, xeno has marked this as resolved. Oh, and have you looked at the list of people in the Cup? Many, many are regulars at AN and ANI, so.. //roux   17:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, perhaps we shouldn't go around trying to shoot down good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia? That seems like a good way to avoid attacks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought that informing a group of editors that they have been mentioned at AN was common courtesy, not cause for complaint. I don't particularly see why this is at AN. This doesn't involve admin tools - discussions at T:TDYK are open to non-admins, its just the actual update that needs an admin. Personally I'd have thought that if the number of DYK candidates is increased, but the rate at which they are updated remains the same, the number of interesting DYKs goes up. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, when the number of candidates is increased, the frequency of updating is too. --NE2 18:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to require admin intervention. Please discuss on the relevant talk page(s). Thanks, Majorly talk 18:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted ten times the abuse you see above, sure, I'd do that. If I wanted people who are not playing this game, I'd go somewhere neutral, like here. --NE2 18:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read what Majorly said. This doesn't require administrative assistance, and as such it is just cluttering up this page. Thank you. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It requires assistance in keeping these hooks off the main page. It requires assistance in keeping Wikipedia about writing an encyclopedia. --NE2 18:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

For that you need to tell the people who update it. And how is the Wikicup not to do with writing an encyclopedia? Majorly talk 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)And given that someone neutral has closed this as resolved three times now, what is that telling you, hmm? Really, it looks like you got your knickers in a twist about one DYK, got shot down about it being included, decided to editwar at the relevant page, and have now scraped up another lame justification for not including the DYK on the front page. Get over it. This requires no admin intervention because there is no problem. //roux   18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

After ec: 'these hooks'? You're complaining about one. Which you had already been shot down about elsewhere, had editwarred over, had whined at Juliancolton about already... the forumshopping is bad. Just walk away. You have refused to provide diffs of all these hooks which Must! Be! Kept! Off! The! Main! Page! which suggests to any rational person that the diffs simply do not exist. If you're so hellbent on writing an encyclopedia, how about you stop wasting everyone's time and go.. umm.. wait it'll come to me... oh yeah! Go write an encyclopedia. //roux   18:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This is getting disruptive. If Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia, and the WikiCup offers friendly competition for writing an encylopedia, what exactly seems to be the problem? Grsz¹¹ 18:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi NE2, and anyone else reading this who is concerned that the Wikicup might degenerate from a legit positive competition into a game; if you have concerns that a specific contestant is debasing the system and devaluing DYK, GA FA or any other part of Wikipedia, can I suggest you first raise your concern with whichever of us has done something that you don't like, and if that doesn't resolve the matter have a discrete word with the WikiCup judges. WereSpielChequers 18:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC) (representing Rapa Nui in the cup)

• Endorse tagging this thread as resolved. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Me too. Seriously, why complain about people improving the encyclopedia? It's better than trollmania. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Grsz (talk · contribs), Juliancolton (talk · contribs), and Sceptre (talk · contribs). It is appropriate to mark this thread as resolved and move on. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Crimson Glory - Astronomica is blacklisted?

I noticed that there is no page for this album, and tried to create it but it appears to be on some blacklist. The article I tried to create matches the link on the Crimson Glory band page, it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomica_(album) Could an administrator please create the album stub page so it can be edited and filled with content? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebelraser (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted back Astronomica (album) to stub version. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

User: Daveschaffer

user:Daveschaffer has removed the speedy delete ((db-inc)) tags from his article Data Robotics, Inc THREE times, despite being warned after 1st, and 2nd removal of same. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest listing the articles again, then, failing that, just waiting until he gets banned. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Relativity.jpg

Resolved

 – Offending revision deleted. Bencherlite^Talk 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This uber-crappy file could probably ultimately be deleted, but it was overwritten today by a non-free album cover (presumably someone didn't notice the file already exists warning). I've reverted to the old (orphaned) image, but presumably the old revision needs deleting or hiding, since it's non-free. I'd have slapped a tag on the image, but couldn't find an appropriate one to use, so I'm reporting it here instead. Cheers, Stannered (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Brittanica

Haha, awesome. They inevitably compare Wikipedia and Brittanica implying in the same sentence that Brittanica is becoming more open while WP closing. Right, now it's Brittanica 'the free encyclopedia'[...]'anyone can edit'. 194.75.236.70 (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So, what are you doing here then? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To note: the article linked is two years old. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a recent discussion by the ABC. Ironic that a newspaper article criticising Wikipedia itself has errors. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Vicious Kitten Records - Not deleting an article on author's request?

Hi all. As some knwo, I am a newbie admin (still), so I stumble upon problems sometimes, which I don't know how to answer. Vicious Kitten Records is one of them. The page existed for 3 years but was not edited beyond minor corrections. The author expressed that he wants the page deleted and someone tagged it G7. I reviewed it and I thought it serves our interests as an encyclopedia best to keep the page despite the request (as WP:CSD allows admins to decide). Do you (= faithful readers of AN) think that was the correct way to treat it? And what do I tell the creator who still wants the page deleted? Regards SoWhy 07:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I see it, I think you were right is declining deletion. Nobody owns the articles, and simply because it is tagged/blanked by creator is not a reason to delete. This might apply only in cases where G7 is used in fairly nascent stage or to a particularly poor article at an early stage. Having said that, I tried to search for notability of the subject, and did not receive any great hits. In light of this, I would suggest that a procedural nomination be made at the AfD where other editors can ponder the notability of the subject and decide whether to keep it or not. ^LeaveSleaves 08:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that G7 deletion would have been inappropriate (since G7 "does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject"). Agree that the author seems to have ownership issues; I would tell the author to nominate the article at AfD if so desired, rather than make a procedural nomination myself. Bencherlite^Talk 08:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally correct in declining the speedy. Also, you may need to make a polite note to the author that they have released their text under the GFDL, and G7 is not a method to revoke that licenece. Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Special:Statistics page needs link changed

I created a Wikipedia:Bots page. the "Bots" link at Special:Statistics should now be linked to it rather than to Wikipedia:Bot policy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 11:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Syriac issue

hello, to get you in the context of things, there was an issue between assyrianists and arameanists about the 'assyrian people page' arameanists claim that Syriacs are not assyrians rather arameans, while assyrians claim syriacs are infact assyrians. Long story short, some admins got involved and we compromised that the pages should be one, and that instead of just "Assyrian" they be "Assyrian/Syriac" or "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac", as seen here: [[28]], and [[29]]. This was the norm for a while and everyone was happy. User:The TriZ took liberty of changing all previous "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac" and everyone was fine with that too. Now the issue is that when I tried to do the exact same thing he did but changing "Syriac" to "Assyrian/Syriac" he undoes my posts ... I ask for explanation, and he asks for sources (mind you he provided no sources for Syriac), then I provide him with sources, and he does want to continue to discuss the issue. He impliments his POV in every page without any sources, and when we try to put the accepted neutral stance of "Assyrian/Syriac" title (Which he agreed upon) he is against it. This is POV at its fullest. The pages I am talking about are: [[30]], [[31]], [[32]], [[33]], and he recently changed "Assyrian" to "Syriac" just recently on this page [[34]]. I have asked him as to why he keeps doing this on this talkpage but as you will see he does want to discuss. P.S. his moves threaten the neutral "Assyrian/Syriac" titles implemented by admins, If he continues like this then what is the point of keeping his changes from "Assyrian" to "Assyrian/Syriac"? Malik Danno (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The people watching Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts may be better suited to addressing this issue. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanx, Ill just copy and paste what I stated above. Malik Danno (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the next step in this situation?

I will try to keep this brief, since the nub of the dispute is already documented fully at talk:Clarence Thomas, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas, and Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas. The short story is that an edit war arose of the content of Clarence Thomas, with both sides accusing one another of POV and violating Wikipedia policy; page protection, a medcab request that went nowhere, and a mediation request that will be rejected because one of the parties to the dispute just lied the mediation folks by refusing consent on the grounds that the matter was already settled, ensued. Since user:RafaelRGarcia has thwarted every attempt to reach consensus, stonewalling efforts by myself and user:Ferrylodge and demonstrating continued intransigence and refusal to allow the article's correction, the resumption of an edit war when the block expires seems inevitable.

While I "have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute," as I see it, the dispute is "over the content of an article," which seems to place it beyond the ambit of arbitration.Wikipedia:DR#Last_resort:_Arbitration. What can I do next? Simon Dodd (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon Dodd's edits to the now-unprotected article, made today, ignored the discussion on the Medcab page entirely and set in his preference on all issues. I have changed these few small parts of the article to better reflect consensus. Admin Bearian joined in on the Medcab discussion to clear up a debate about WP policy, but Dodd ignored even this comment, lying and saying that the response was not relevant. Dodd insists on adding unverifiable, uncited claims to the Thomas article; this is the main point of contention, but the policy on Verifiability says this claim should not be allowed. User Ferrylodge has the same political views as Dodd, and the two tag-team on other political articles, like Unitary_executive_theory. He joined in late in this issue to tag team against me and corroborate what Dodd says. Anyway, I feel that the Medcab discussion cleared up the issues quite a bit, and that a consensus version of the page is now quite possible, unless Dodd insists having his way on every aspect of the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to comment on this characterization of what happened at medcab. I invite interested parties to go and read the page for themselves.Simon Dodd (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

← How about a 0/1RR restriction? It could work. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editnotices work surprising well for restrictions like that. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:1RR suggests that "[s]ome editors may choose to voluntarily follow a one-revert rule: If someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them." That approach has already been tried and failed, as the talk page discussion and the article's edit history makes clear. Discussion only works when both sides are willing to compromise, and are contributing in good faith to improve Wikipedia; Garcia has already rebutted the presumption of good faith time and again (most recently by the outright lie offered to the mediation committee that the issue was resolved), has made clear that he will not compromise (see, e.g., the medcab dispute on the section title "commerce clause"), and this dispute is precisely about Garcia's wikilawyering in service of preventing the improvement of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has to have some mechanism for dealing with users like him - for dealing with situations where discussion between two editors has proven unworkable, for resolving antithetical views on how an article should read. Simon Dodd (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interested parties have read the discussions, and have found that your mischaracterization of RafaelRGarcia, Simon Dodd, is just as bad as, if not worse than, xyr mischaracterization of you. I thank you both for having a dispute that is actually on an interesting subject, and not on some sex scandal, though. ☺ For what it's worth, you're both wrong.

Simon Dodd, you're wrong in that if you have no source stating what someone's position on states' rights is, you have no business adding content that states a position for that person, however much you want to "balance" an opinion of that person published by an analyst. The correct application of the NPOV policy is to attribute the opinion to the person who holds it, so that it is presented as opinion, and not presented as if it were Wikipedia's opinion. One doesn't need to construct original counterarguments for opinions that one disagrees with. Correcting the rest of the world is not Wikipedia's place.

RafaelRGarcia, you're wrong in that Simon Dodd is not "deleting facts", and you're also wrong to try to present only one view out of what are clearly more than one in the article's introduction. Plenty of sources do not portray Thomas' rôle on the Court as you would have the article portrary it.

I suggest that both of you make an attempt to get out of this rut that you are in, because the "next step" in this situation is your both being limited in your edits by administrators. Be warned: To an impartial observer you're both at fault, and of the two of you there's no wholly right side to pick.

I find it highly surprising that neither of you has gone to look for more sources. You could cite Ingram's observation on Thomas and states' rights and judicial restraint (pp. 115 of ISBN 9781596985162), for example. Or you could use pp. 32–33 of ISBN 9780226294087; or pp. 329 of ISBN 9780226443416; or pp. 111–112 of ISBN 9781576073476; or pp.119–120 of ISBN 9780976678809; or pp. 155 of ISBN 9780813923031; or pp. 90 of ISBN 9780814775684. And that's just where I stopped looking. All of these deal with Thomas, and the SCOTUS in general, and states' rights, and show how complex the issue is, and how it shouldn't be falsely reduced and oversimplified to an issue of racial equality (as you are doing, Simon Dodd), and how Thomas is not some lone perennial minority dissenter (as you would have him portrayed, RafaelRGarcia). Indeed, yet another source, pp. 145 of ISBN 9780415232630, makes pretty much exactly this point about states' rights in relation to Thomas.

More attention to sources, less edit warring, and a willingness by both of you to leave the rut that you are stuck in, are needed. The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, using, and evaluating of sources. You both seem to erroneously think that the finding part is over. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, without meaning to sound disputatious, just a few queries. First, could you be more specific on two points that went by me. You say that I have "mischaracteriz[ed]" Garcia; how, and where? Where have I "reduced and oversimplified to an issue of racial equality" the question of whether Justice Thomas has ever used the term "states' rights" in a published opinion? Second, you say that I shouldn't add something for which I don't have a source, but you are not addressing the key point that Garcia is demanding that I prove a negative. If Thomas has used the term - ever. As often as once - Garcia can destroy my position by citing it. He will not, because he can't; is the accuracy of the article to be held hostage for want of a published source stating the obvious? How, then, do you account for the examples given at MedCab (for example, the nuclear option case)? And third, I think it is only fair to note that I have done everything possible to "to leave the rut." I tried WP:BRD; Garcia rejected all attempts at finding compromise language. I took the issue to the talk page; Garcia rejected all attempts at compromise, even when a third editor got involved. I took it to medcab, and Garcia refused to even consider compromise language on even the most minor point at issue. I took it to mediation, and Garcia refused assent to mediation based on a lie. Concededly, I didn't try WP:Third opinion, but in light of everything else tried, see WP:SNOW. I don't know how I could possibly have shown more willing to forge ahead. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning someone never saying something: As far as I know, the rule is that we can't make such an observation unless it has appeared in a reliable source; otherwise it's original research. There are many true things that we can't say for such technical reasons. This is the price we pay for having objective rules. So yes, although it's a bit counterintuitive you must prove a negative, and it's possible in principle. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hans, isn't that precisely the sort of absurd situation that WP:IAR exists to avoid? "Its purpose is to keep [rules] from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated. ... Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. (See also Wikipedia:Use common sense.)"[35] How do you deal with the nuclear option statement mentioned at MedCab, that Congress did nothing about a particular problem in 1993 - is that one going on the ashpile, too? When I was editing the John G. Roberts article recently, there was another similar "prove a negative" situation that I got rid of for an unrelated reason; there are a lot of statements throughout Wikipedia that are unquestionably true (that is, can't be questioned in good faith, such as the assertion at issue here) but that are uncited and would be tough to cite. It seems to me that when Wikipedia policy seems to require an insane result that is detrimental to the encyclopædia, that is precisely the sort of situation for which the IAR escape hatch was designed, and that applies a fortiori in the context of WP:BLP. Simon Dodd (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what needs to be done, you should cite every single opinion Thomas has given as proof he has never used the term "state's rights". </sarcasm> This is getting a bit out of hand, and now a whole section has been thrown together to try to refute a single source. Is that really necessary (and seems like some OR has been thrown in as well)? I'm not sure the article was ready for unprotection, and it doesn't seem like these editors are discussing that much or playing nice. Perhaps a RFC could bring more opinions to the table to help settle issues, or if the edit warring continues, locking the article again.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

personally, I tend to like the solution in matters like this of asking both the individuals involved to avoid contributing to the article for a period of time, so that other editors can fix it. (I do have an opinion about who is the more reasonable of the two, but that is not immediately relevant to the question of how to go forward). he person whose view of the matter i do agree with is Uncle G (as I usually do)./ As admins have the power to block both eds for a time for edit warring, we have the power to give them a partial block only, though there are no technical means for automatically enforcing it. DGG (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Andrew, the sarcasm is unproductive and misplaced. What would you have me do? If I was asserting that Thomas had used the term, I would cite the case in which he used it. It has been demanded that I prove a negative by citing a source, and the only way to prove a negative is to cite every single instance in which it could possibly have occurred but didn't. So I did just that. Is that a ridiculous result? You bet. But I'm not the one who made it necessary.

I would also emphasize that my edit was made with great care to comply with WP:OR. That policy is very clear on this point. It allows primary sources to be cited when they "have been reliably published," as the U.S. Reports have been, "but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That standard is, beyond any serious doubt, met by the footnote I added: I did not "interpret[]" the primary source material at all; the only use I put it to was a descriptive claim (it supports the descriptive claim that none of those opinions contain the words "states' rights"); and it requires no specialist knowledge at all to check those opinions to confirm that they do not contain the words "states' rights." WP:OR further rejects "original research or original thought ... includ[ing] unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." Here, there are no unpublished facts or arguments, original thoughts, speculation, or ideas - merely the statement that none of those cases contain the words states' rights. It might be irrelevant to edit Altria Group v. Good to state that Justice Thomas' opinion in that case does not contain the words "a moo cow says what"; it might even be vandalism - but it would not be original research. And if it is not original research to state that one opinion does not contain a particular phrase, it cannot be original research to state that many opinions do not contain that phrase. (And if the response is that I'm sticking to the letter of WP:OR rather than considering its purpose, my reply is that invocation of WP:IAR is precisely what I've been saying all along.) Simon Dodd (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I should add - Andrew, I'm not at all opposed to an RFC, but as I mentioned above, I took the issue to medcab and tried to take it to mediation, neither of which has any purposes beside "bring[ing] more opinions to the table to help settle issues"; neither helped. I filed a request for third opinions about William Rehnquist (see [36]; [37]), and it hasn't brought in a single additional voice. I'm certainly willing to give it a try - but I really find it insulting that there seems to be not a whit of recognition here that at every turn, I've been trying to get outside input on the article, been trying to find consensus, been trying to involve other editors. It is not me who's the problem here. Simon Dodd (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)This article definitely could use semi-protection, to stop edit-warring and vandalizing by IPs.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I guess there's not enough trouble to warrant semi-protection.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible unapproved bot being run

I quote this from User talk:Anomie:

“ ==My bot==

Will run and continue to become more improved weither you like it or not because I dont give a damn about approval and it may not look like much but in time it will be perfected just like any other bot on Wikipedia.

WP:IAR states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." well I am applying that to my bot so it can IMPROVE AND MAINTAIN this aging collection of knowledge that everyone has spent there time on Earth helped make reality. AndysCrogz1 (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

”

Normally this might go on wikietiquitte alerts, but since AndysCrogz1 implies here he/she is running an unapproved bot, this needs to be handled by an admin.--Ipatrol (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked as a banned sock of some other user. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not a real bot. Look at the edits. Its quite clearly someone just acting like a bot. This is the second instance of this. Its blatant sockpuppetry combined with vandalism/trolling. The first "bot" was supposedly written in Flash and the second supposedly had an AI addon despite using AWB. Either this person is an amazing programmer but is otherwise completely clueless or its just random disruption. Mr.Z-man 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He misinterpreted WP:IAR, in any case. —kurykh 03:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction

The Arbitration Committee has amended the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin by successful motion, archived here, to include two clarifications of the initial remedy.

Effective immediately, the restriction applies only to specific administrative actions applied to specific users. It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors. This is a provisional measure, pending the resolution of the arbitration enforcement request for comment. Furthermore, the Committee observed that administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Oi vey. So saying "If you do/don't do X I'll block you under AE clause" is not an action under AE clause? Is that what this means? Further, if Admin A says "don't do X per ArbCom" then Admin B says "no, that warning was way too much" where does that leave the user? Where does that leave the admins, more to the point?
brenneman 02:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm having a heck of a time trying to figure out what the clarification actually means in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread should be deleted simply for having too many words in the title that end in the suffix -ion. And someone said Wikipedia was getting too bureaucratic to actually get something done. Ni, I say. Keeper | 76 05:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Brenneman's concern, please read Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motion: re SlimVirgin#Restriction on arbitration enforcement activity clarification, subsection "Comments". The second and third comments were made (the second by the drafter of the motion) after very different comments were made on the motion by Elonka and myself. GRBerry 16:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

revert after 4th warning

Resolved

 – Geeked by User:Oren0. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 08:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:145.103.246.233 edited Dracunculiasis as vandal - when I went to warn after revert, I saw it was already at 4 warnings. Don't think I can do anymore myself here. (let me know what I should do if I see this again somewhere) Ched (talk) 08:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User has been blocked. In the future, WP:AIV is the place for this. Oren0 (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks .. I'll bookmark (just in case) Ched (talk) 08:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Old hoax article creator has requested deletion

Hi there - question about something happening on the article Nocxangel network. During new page patrol I came across Joshua pang, an obvious hoax, which I nominated for speedy deletion. It was deleted by an admin, then recreated by the original author, User:Sqitnocx. I checked that user's other contributions, and found Nocxangel network, created by Sqitnocx back in July 2007. Some Googling revealed that Wikipedia and its mirror sites are the only sources online attesting to this company, and that is claimed NASDAQ symbol was fictional. I added a prod tag on the basis that it was a hoax; Sqitnocx then blanked the page (and Joshua pang), and added comments to the talk pages of both saying he was trying to delete them. Vandal patrollers keep quite rightly reverting the blanking. Sqitnocx has now added a {{prod2}} to Nocxangel network. So my question: does Nocxangel network still need to wait out its five days in PROD, or can it be speedily deleted? And how best to respond to Sqitnocx? Gonzonoir (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that, if only one editor has made substantial contributions, then blanked or requested deletion, then the page can be speedied, exactly the same as if they'd put a {{db-author}} on it. Something like that seems to've happened. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I've deleted both. As they helped to clear things up, i am reluctant to block although they suggested as much at Talk:Nocxangel network.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about File:Nocxangel.JPG, this author's other contribution. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess nobody will complain about deleting it as housekeeping.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - it hadn't been entirely clear to me that Sqitnocx was the article's only substantial contributor, because there were some IP edits too - but I guess these could have been an un-logged-in Sqitnocx, and I'm not sure what the baseline for "substantial" is anyway. Thanks for the prompt attention. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a large backlog. Please remove this message when the backlog is cleared. Thanks! seicer | talk | contribs 15:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Plewinski

Weird issue. Plenty of notability, well-sourced and fairly well-written article...but the username makes me a bit suspect. COI, spam name block or ? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Reads like an advert to me - sent in the flamethrowers - as for the other issues - could be.--Cameron Scott (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me and the competitions sound well... dodgy. Needs a look from some experts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I was thinking of hitting the speedy button, but it seemed kind of borderline. Someone pass me a flamethrower and a fire suit, please...--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Cameron Scott has now opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sebastian Plewinski. I gave a 3RR warning to the creator of the article, Management artists after I noticed them reverting some improvements of the article by regular editors. They have not continued, but a series of IPs have now begun work on the article. Lately the IP editors have removed the AfD banner from the article for the second time. Semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

See also: pl:Sebastian Plewiński, created by the same account. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Block times

Resolved

 – Consensus seems to be that on top is the preferred position. –xeno (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to adjust block times drop-down so that "indefinite" is at the bottom of the list. This would make the ordering logical, with the shortest blocks at the top and the longest at the bottom. Logical ordering would make the drop-down more intuitive, especially to new administrators. Thoughts? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite is one of the most common, so it should be at the top. I think it used to be at both top & bottom for some time. Kusma (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I was told the same. You'll find its easier to get to indef if its first on the list. Synergy 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess I should point out the obvious that "indefinite" isn't necessarily the longest block time, since it's an indeterminate amount of time. It could, theoretically, be the shortest. I think we should leave it where it is... –xeno (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Never fails. Someone always shows up to point that out. :) Synergy 19:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Accounts that are blocked indefinitely are typically things like inappropriate user names and thus are rarely unblocked, making "indefinite" the same as "infinite". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Typically yes, but even those are unblocked for requesting another username. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec*2)On the subject of this, is the 5-year option not a bit unnecessary, how often does someone get that long a block?--Jac16888^Talk 19:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think open proxies receive 5 year blocks. –xeno (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2) Yes, for open proxies. Synergy 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Open proxies, in my experience, receive block times of only 2 years... -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Two years isn't one of the block times.... Synergy 19:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an "other" option that allows you to fill in the time. Whether or not it's a block time in the list tends to be immaterial. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh thats right. Haven't seen it yet, and I forgot about that option. Thanks for the reminder. Synergy 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Different types of open proxies should get different lengths of block. Only the long term static IP hosted proxies should get up to five years. Spambots, zombie proxies, and Tor proxies should generally be blocked for under a year, unless in each case there is evidence they have been active for a long time, they are far more likely to be dynamic or closed down. One year or six months should be the usual length of block for most open proxies. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd prefer "indef" remain on top. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. (should be obvious, considering I undid the change to the MediaWiki page...) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Agreed, it's far more convenient for indefinite to be at the top. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I prefer it at the top. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, if that's what everyone else prefers then that's fine. Sorry to cause such a controversy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Against indefinite blocks

I was wrongly indefinitely blocked a few weeks ago. Indefinite blocks should not be done. 1 year blocks are better for everything except inappropriate names. Even people who murder are often given multi-year sentences, not lifetime sentences. This would encourage rehabilitation. I have been editing for 1.5 years and suddenly, boom, blocked for life. Administrators must be very careful to be ombudsmen, not trigger happy goons who block with fun and sadistic satisfaction. By being nice ombudsmen, WP gets better. Spevw (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You were accidentally blocked for a total of 9 minutes, before the admin responsible noticed and unblocked without prompting, it was over a month before you even realised. I would hardly call that a life sentence, or the result of a sadistic trigger-happy goon--Jac16888^Talk 03:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the above incident would have been materially different if Spevw had been mistakenly blocked for 1 year rather than indefinitely. I don't think it would affect anyone's assessment of the editor or the admin involved (please, no Goons). More generally, I support the idea of the indefinite block; having no fixed duration, it sends a very clear message to the editor in question that unblocking requires some specific action or undertaking on their part. Some editors will sit out a month-long block and return to being disruptive, but indef blocked users tend to discuss what needs to be done, to get back to editing, within a week or so. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Moulton becoming active

This IP, and presumably others in the range, are being used by User:Moulton. His account is globally locked, but he's been using dynamic IPs for a while now on Wikiversity. As of yesterday we've blocked the ranges (info here). Just worth keeping an eye on, since he might become more active here now that WV is less accessible to him. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replicated the steward-recommended rangeblocks here for 31 hours, so either he'll find a new way or we get to do it again in 31 hours. MBisanz ^talk 15:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of ranges, unfortunately. See Special:Contributions/68.163.110.239. If folks could add my talk to their watchlists, I'd appreciate it.

OTOH, is there any reason I can't just protect my page to autoconfirmed? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page? That's usually reserved for pretty severe situations, as nonconfirmed editors will often have a legit reason to want to talk with you. User:Moultan can usually be dealt with fine by simply not reading what he writes. WilyD 16:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know :-). He's got a considerable history with me though, so it might end up being the more reasonable option as a short-term discouragement. I was thinking that would cause less collateral damage than rangeblocks. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: there is an open meta:Steward requests/Checkuser#Moulton@enwikiversity which lists ranges and sockpuppets that he has been using. --mikeu ^talk 16:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a temporary semi-protection of one's talk page is fine under some circumstances, though it's probably better to wait for evidence of an actual problem rather than doing it pre-emptively. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think MBizanz is on the ranges (thanks!), but if he continues to go around, I'll semi-protect for a few days. For whatever reason, I rarely get messages from unreg'd contributors anyway, so probably won't be much of a problem. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to semi your talk page, simply make an alternative talk page for IPs. 18:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask interested folk to keep an eye on the meta page meta:Steward requests/Checkuser#Moulton@enwikiversity ... Spacebirdy and I did some digging last night and more may be needed, updates will happen there, no doubt. ++Lar: t/c 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedian looking for help

Hi, can someone help at User talk:Mecha13? He's got a {{helpme}} on his talk page (I welcomed him initially) but it is for something which I can't help with. Thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Mecha13 is being affected by a proxy hardblock. I've declined his request to have it removed, as it was just recently blocked and still appears to be open. He is a new user, and so I was wondering if an WP:IPBE would be in order. The only thing that worries me is that this isn't normally done for proxies unless there's a good reason for it, and Mecha claims not to know what a proxy is. Some opinions on this, please? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hermaphroditus

I attempted to create ʽἙρμάφρόδιτός as a redirect to Hermaphroditus because it is the Ancient Greek form, but I received a message stating that the title was on a blacklist. Would it be possible for an administrator to create it for me? Neelix (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done and fully protected since I'm pretty sure I know why that was on the blacklist. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:AshrafRana, Arab/Israeli NPOV problems, bordering on political vandalism

User:AshrafRana has been removing references to Isreali culture from various Middle-Eastern food articles, and replacing them with Arabic references. one of his first edit summaries mentioned "Zionist Occupiers". In one case, user replaced an "Israeli" photo with an "Arabic" photo. User then flatly rejected my attempt at NPOV ("lets just put in BOTH photos", I even put his first). and claimed that any reference to Israel in reference to these foods was not NPOV, regardless of numerous mentions of arabic culture in the same article. (for the record, I am not a member of either culture, and have never even tasted these foods). Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Left a warning. If this behavior continues unabated, then a block would be appropriate. Importing inflammatory political rhetoric into a discussion of photos used to illustrate various foodstuffs seems to violate WP:BATTLE. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Bots and Archives

Resolved

 – Bot changed back to MiszaBot, archiving seems to be working fine. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice that the archives template in the upper right no longer points to the right place, apparently archive 181 was done by a different bot? Whats going on here exactly? Apologies if I missed an already posted query.--Tznkai (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't confirm the issue. /Archive181 doesn't exist and is redlinked in the template for me. Additionally, /Archive180 is no where near full enough to make a new archive necessary yet. Some of Archive180 appears to have been manually archived, but other than that I don't understand what's wrong here. lifebaka++ 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 181, which is different than Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181. Suggest tweaking the archive setting and doing some manual cut/pastes. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, forgot to check this page's history. Tweaked setting, did a history merge, and a page move. Turns out there's also /Archive 180, so I merged it with /Archive180 and moved /Archive 181 to /Archive181. It should be taken care of now, although Archive180 is larger than before. The bot settings should make it archive without the space now, but watch in case Archive 180 turns to a blue link again. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the simple fix worked. There are a few pages that link to Archive 180 and Archive 181, so the redirects might be useful to restore. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In stead, I have updated the links to these archive pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

IANAA, but IIRC, I've seen ClueBot (I believe) doing the archiving for the AN/ANI pages the last week or two (or more?) on my watchlist, instead of MiszaBot. Dunno why, but that may be the cause for the trouble. umrguy42 20:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Canis Lupus changed the archive bot from MiszaBot II to ClueBot III. Since it seems to be working now, I don't know if there's a good reason to change the bot back. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Canis Lupus has been indef blocked as a sock of Betacommand, so he can't be invited to comment here. Per the discussion at WT:AN#Archiving I suggest that we undo Canis Lupus's change and let MiszaBot resume archiving. (The switch to ClueBot may have been a misunderstanding due to the end-of-December outage that affected all the toolserver bots). EdJohnston (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(not an admin) I weakly support switching back, if only for consistency among noticeboards. Flatscan (talk) 06:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like the archiving stopped again. The last archive run I see was 25 January. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

flip it back.--Tznkai (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The archiving has resumed. However, as the comments supported changing back to MiszaBot II, I changed the bot back. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision and log suppression now enabled for oversighters on enwiki

Hi all. I'd just like to state this here, before people start to notice anyways. Brion has now enabled the Revision and Log Suppression functions on the English Wikipedia, and that this is currently available to oversighters only. You can see an example of it in action here. The official MediaWiki page is here.

What this means to admins and other editors is that people can now report potentially libelous comments in move logs, block logs, etc to Oversight where they can be evaluated and removed according to policy. It's been a major issue that movelogs, etc cannot be oversighted when the contents of the edit summary are problematic. This issue has now been addressed with this function & personally, I'm absolutely delighted that this feature is now enabled here. Thank you, Brion! - Alison ^❤ 23:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; another tool in the armoury. In the last week I have seen Flagged Revisions move a step closer, today, AbuseBot doing what is is meant to be doing, and this is yet another indication that Wikipedia is maturing. Open editing is fine except when we do not adequately defend against viable threats. Goodwill of volunteers can be stretched, you know. --Rodhullandemu 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that it still leaves a timestamp in place to show that something loggable happened. That should help satisfy the paranoid wing - which is a good thing in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Given this basically means we no longer have to bug the developers to do the same task as we can now do ourselves, this sounds great. Daniel (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol @ Rodhullandemu's comment given the thread below. Viridae^Talk 04:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Which is entitled Malfunctioning adminbot, and refers to a malfunction of AntiAbuseBot. Just noting that in case the archive bot changes the order of these two threads. Graham87 07:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hallelujah! I recall the incident that led to the changing of A7's deletion text in the drop-down menu and I recall all the libelous vandal pagemoves against Ledger; hopefully now I don't have to see them for ages. One question, though: How would one go about reporting a log change to OS? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you mean? If you find a movelog or a block log or whatev, with non-public, personal information or potential libel in it or even copyvio, just email Oversight with the URL to the logs. Simple as that. Note, too, that this is not just for logs but can also hide edit revisions, too - Alison ^❤ 07:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (Thought you'd be pleased all right ^_^ )

Thanks, Alison. That's what I mainly needed to know. (goes off to Heath Ledger, if Alison doesn't get to it first) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done - by about four hungry oversighters, all at the one time :) - Alison ^❤ 07:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Replacing sourced information with unsourced information

Hello! Could someone please take a look at Slavica Ecclestone article. A user keeps removing sourced information along with sources without explanation and replacing them with unsourced information. I assume good faith, but it's vandalism anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not clear ot me why we even have that article. She has no notability independent of Bernie Ecclestone. Neither does their daughter, for that matter. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If it's going to be kept anyway, then it should include references. Surtsicna (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

CSD caution

I just removed Western blot from CAT:CSD. An IP editor had tried to add a reference to the article, but mistakenly used the {{web}} template rather than the {{citeweb}} template: diff.

Template:Web is a redirect to Template:Db-web, which means that the article was added to CAT:CSD as a non-notable website. Since the template was added inside a set of ref tags, it appeared down at the bottom of the article, in its References section. An editor who doesn't check that the reference was properly inserted – as this one didn't – won't realize that something has gone horribly wrong. The average CSD patroller might also have trouble figuring out how the article even got into the category.

Off the top, I'll urge anyone who's patrolling CAT:CSD to watch for this problem. The quick fix is to find the offending {web} in the article and replace it with a {citeweb}: diff.

I'm also inclined to suggest that we delete Template:Web altogether, or replace it with a disambiguation message directing editors to replace it with either {citeweb} or {db-web} as appropriate. Thoughts? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable idea. Certainly there should not be a redirect. --Tone 15:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In spirit of uniformity of all CSD-templates, I think {{web}} should be redirected to {{cite web}} instead. All CSD templates should start with db-. Regards SoWhy 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed. Propose it at the WT:CSD talk page. DGG (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and changed it to cite web. If anyone really disagrees, they can always change it back. Regards SoWhy 17:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone is going to disagree too loudly, seems like a commonsense change to me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Talk:Alan Wilkins (playwright)

Could someone cleanup the move and subsequent vandalism AlexandGuy (talk · contribs) made to Talk:Alan Wilkins (playwright). Thanks --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, I have deleted the two pages as they had no edit history other than vandalism and then recreated the talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Goethean : personal attacks, incivility, totally disputed tags

Recently when I was reviewing the GAN of Ramakrishna article, I came across an editor, Goethean (talk · contribs) who has indulged in personal attacks, incivility and unexplained addition of "Totally disputed" tags.

He is adding totally disputed tags for no particular reason. The Talk pages of Ramakrishna are full of personal attacks from Goethean, and when I was trying to carryout a review, he carried out a improper review (failing the article in just 2 days!) and when I intervened he attacked me as "wikilawyer". After this when the review was in progress, he repeatedly added totally disputed tags with no apparent reason and the justification he gave was that scholarship older than last 30 years are invalid, which is obviously incorrect. A quick look at the Ramakrishna#Notes indicates that this is completely false, every article has a blend of scholarship from different periods and so does this article.

Here is the list of his last few edits to the Ramakrishna article:

• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• This is an awesome edit and caught me with surprise. The editor is trying to revert the article to the version which is a month older. Does he own this article? This is clearly against the wikipedia community and this was rightly stopped by other editors.
• Addition of Totally disputed tags
• Addition of Totally disputed tags

There are also plenty of personal attacks in the talk page, few ones easy to spot:

• "What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous."[38]
• "Frankly, your tactics are despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself."[39]
• "If I were you, I would be ashamed of it."[40]

while going through the comments of other editors on Talk page, I came across this report on personal attaks and disruptive edits as well. When I searched the admin noticeboard, I also came across several incidents of personal attacks, even against admins!

Goethean will probably attack me saying that I am "wikilawyering", but his edits are clearly against the wikipedia community and guildelines. He is disrupting the article, indulging in personal attacks, adding totally disputed tags for no apparent reason.

Admins please look into it. Thank you.Bluptr (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean to accomplish by bringing up comments that I made back in September and earlier. The fact is that under your watch, the article has gone from something a scholar would be pleased with to something a religious propagandist would be pleased with. There are problems that need to be fixed. Rather than dismissing my claims out of hand, please begin working with me and User:Hipocrite to resolve the dispute and to fix the problems with the article. NPOV is a Wikipedia policy which must be followed. — goethean ॐ 15:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Bluptr's assessment. The article went through an extensive peer review three months ago, and through an extensive Good Article review during the last month. Multiple editors with knowledge of this area support the content, though the prose is needing improvement. Goethean's tagging and incivility are certainly an issue. User:Hipocrite has rather suddenly appeared to support the tagging. An uninvolved and neutral admin wouldn't be a bad idea. Priyanath ^talk 18:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I don't support or oppose anything. I'm trying to find a way for you all to reach a solution that every one of you can support. I welcome additional eyes on this dispute, but a. Uninvolved and Neutral has already shown up (hi!), and b. Bringing it to silly noticeboards is not at all helpful at this juncture. Given that everyone involved has shown willingess to engage in reasonable discussion on the talk page of the article in question, why not continue doing that? Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hipocrite, you appeared out of nowhere, and supported the tagging in the non-neutral way, and have also added the tags again and also resolved the issue here. Doesn't it sound suspicious? If you start adding the tags again, to the stable article, I will be opening this discussion again. Nvineeth (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is utterly inappropriate for editors who have made significant contributions to an article in the past to make a GA assesssment on that article. If an article is not fit to be passed, a neutral reviewer will deem it so and fail it with much more sufficient reasoning; in fact, your own views would, of course, be taken into consideration - but you have no standing to fail an article. However, to the editor reporting this, digging up history that isn't directly relevant to the dispute at hand is not going to achieve anything - we don't punish users, so you're wasting time for all of us. The sort of commentary and lack of good faith exhibited by both sides is not appropriate and the amount of LAME edit-warring over tags on this article is unhelpful.

I have an urge to get this article under probation whereby any editors who indulge in edit-warring, incivility, personal attacks, and other types of misconduct, will be swiftly sanctioned. Alternatively, if an uninvolved (and reasonably experienced) administrator volunteers to keep an eye on this article and handle behavioral issues, then this may not be necessary. That's up to the community - that is an issue that shold be resolved here before the behaviour (of those involved) keeps going out of control, particularly with regards to edit-warring.

Both sides probably have valid concerns, but it's time you both found ways to resolve the underlying content dispute. Trying to create/find drama does not benefit this project, no matter which side you are on. I suggest you try mediation - but if either side is unwilling, then article RFC. This is what you need to try if you can't resolve it amongst yourselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an uninvolved and neutral admin is all that's needed at this point. Volunteers can sign up at Talk:Ramakrishna :-) Priyanath ^talk 16:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael IX the White

Resolved

 – Content dispute; reported user has been engaging in discussion on talkpage, nothing to see here

//roux   17:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael IX the White this user is removing parts of the 2008 civil unrest in Greece article based on his POV when I prompted in his talk page why this was done? the user cited that : We do not have space enough for details. the page is already semi protected but I don't think that the users behaviour is correct according to WP:policy.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Whatever removed is justified in the talk page.
2. This user, Sadbuttrue92 did not make any reference in the article talk page to this whatsoever, when any disagreement in changes should be done there.
3. This user did not discuss with me in any possible way why my edits seem POV to him.
4. The article is way too long, and we have agreed in the talk page to shorten it.
5. I've had no warning of this here.
6. Personal attacks (with warning):[41],[42]

--Michael X the White (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, "WP:Policy". Anyway, I see nothing but a possible content dispute, and Michael seems more than willing to talk about it on the talk page. As far as I'm concerned, there is no admin action necessary at this time. Tan | 39 17:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Archive/October 2008#User:A State Of Trance

Since this last report was filed, this user has continued to behave disruptively. I reported the user at that time because I suspected that there a number of accounts being used by the same person for malicious activity.

The outcome of this last item was that all four of the accounts that were suspected were indeed sockpuppets of the same user. User Rlevse blocked all of them indefinitely. I felt like that was an appropriate action to take considering the user's disruptive behavior, including the over-the-top vandalism of the very report that I had put together. These bits of vandalism to the WP:ANI report are clearly labeled in the subheading link above.

Since that time, another user (SunDragon34) made a request to work with User:A State Of Trance so that that user wouldn't be indefinitely blocked. To my surprise this request was granted, and User:A State Of Trance was unblocked based on the notion that Sundragon would mentor A state of trance and that User:A State Of Trance would stick to one account. I saw no interaction between these two users after that request for unblock was granted. This bit of mentorship failed.

Since then the user has made more multiple accounts. The most recent one is a malicious attempt to make an account that is ridiculously similar to my own account. In fact he's duplicated my personal userpage which goes against WP:UP#NOT #5. I don't know what the purpose is, but the user's failure to work with a more experience editor, and his failure to stick to one account is my reason for re-posting this user as a problem user.

The new accounts that, in my opinion, should not have been made are:

• ADV45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kaio-ken x10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The account that attempts to replicate my own is:

• E dog96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This behavior is so over-the-top that I am asking that the user be indefinitely blocked and the contributions made by User:E dog96 be removed permanently.

I am attempting to build this encyclopedia, but more than half of my efforts go into cleaning up the poop and other unconstructive edits of others. This issue was temporarily resolved, then hosed again nearly immediately with that request for mentorship that failed.E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 19:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked ADV45, Kaio-ken x10, E dog96 and re-blocked A State Of Trance. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was fairly creepy. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 01:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Extremely disruptive user

<refactored> Bobby Cro reblocked - drivel available in history; let us not feed the trolls. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

My name is BobbyCro

<refactored> Bobby Cro reblocked - drivel available in history; let us not feed the trolls. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible Gwp socks

Two socks from this user creation range have gone on the "rampage" as such today, with page move vandalism, i.e. Roo's Tubes (talk · contribs) and Yigger (talk · contribs). I see several accounts (as of yet have not gone on the rampage) with six or seven edits in quick succession and nothing else - for instance Smokemirror86 (talk · contribs) and The Flea from Mucha Lucha (talk · contribs). I'm not an admin (so therefore can't block), but I'm certain that if an admin skins through the account contributions listed in that UC range, they will see some *possible* sleepers. Also there appears to be several in the load, approx. 06:33/34/35. D.M.N. (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

No obvious sleepers left, given the two accounts you mentioned. Do feel free to report any more if/when they turn up, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the latter two accounts; the contribution histories look like an endrun around the autoconfirmation limit and in and of themselves should have set off alarm bells. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 12:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks fine to me. Very minor edits (changing capitalization, piping links, adding or removing a space) with a new account to get the account autoconfirmed looks like classic Gwp behavior. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that this is not an appropriate block reason, especially for an account that has not made any unconstructive edits. Would you care to explain this? -- Gurch (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again: the account was making minor or insubstantial edits to bypass the autoconfirmed barrier, which in and of itself is a red flag it's a Jarl sock. Whether they're constructive or not is more often than not immaterial. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And that makes it alright to stoop to their level? -- Gurch (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

They lost any chance for civility from me the day after 4chan got FP'd. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you should recuse from blocking them. Admin logs should always be perfectly civil and informative. The possibility of a false positive, especially when it's not the most typical Gwp-sock editing style, and the fact they haven't reached the 10 edits threshold, shouldn't be discarded. New users often begins with very minor edits, look at the new users' log. Cenarium (Talk) 23:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

New users make minor edits to the same article exclusively within a few minutes of each edit? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed possible. No need to make such edit summaries. Majorly talk 23:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that a possible Jarlaxle sock shouldn't be blocked on behavior, Majorly? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 23:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I started out by making minor edits to articles. So do many editors. There's too much risk you'll block a good editor instead. Majorly talk 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooooly crap. You left a block message of "Go circlejerk with your wethers, Jarl" on someone whose only edits were adding "Escape from Alcatraz" to List of films based on actual events and then editing their entry six times? You're going to have to explain what this "behavior" problem is, and even so the block message wouldn't be justified. rspεεr (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The "behavior" problem is the large amount of edits in a relatively short time, usually to the same article or section of an article, intended to bypass the autoconfirmation wall. And as for the edit summaries, it would help if someone had the testicles to tell the Foundation to file an abuse report to his ISP, since they don't listen to volunteers. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, please forgive my ignorance here, but just out of curiosity, what does "FP'd" mean? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Front Paged. The 4chan article appeared on Wikipedia's main page - Alison ^❤ 08:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the reply. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeske, though the underlying problem is very serious, and preemptory action justified, that deletion rationale you left is absolutely unsuitable under any circumstances. I understand impatience, but this is far beyond what any admin should ever say on-wiki. DGG (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So is crap that is essentially outing editors, but I notice there are no rangeblocks. Ask Alison and you'll understand a bit better why I've been berserk as of late. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, I can understand that. While I think your edit summary was uncalled-for, I can sure understand your frustration. I've made a similar block summary myself before, and that was wrong, too. Jéské and NawlinWiki are two of the admins at the forefront of protecting the wiki against JarlaxleArtemis/Grawp/You-know-who and at times, things can get just too much. JA has a habit of making as strong and as indelible a BLP violation as he possibly can (against people like Daniel Brandt, Jeffrey Vernon Merkey and Giovanni di Stefano for example). He also enjoys publishing personal info on people, including Jéské amongst others. Saying Jéské is 'impatient' is putting it somewhat mildly; he's absolutely frustrated and annoyed by this timewasting nuisance. The irony is that JA/Grawp's real-life identity has also been floating around yet he continues unabated - Alison ^❤ 04:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to put a point on it, but "frustrated and annoyed" is also putting it mildly, Alison. Try "about to block self before he goes on an administrative rampage against anons". -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 06:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That works, too. I was thinking something stronger, actually, which I won't repeat here ^_^ - Alison ^❤ 07:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead. At this point, nothing's gonna offend me - the fact that Jarl still has 'net is offensive enough. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm. Two different issues here. The block: fine. Seems reasonable, preventative and easily reversible. The block log entry....much less so. I can see the frustration that drives Jeske to do this, so I don't think we gain anything from raking him over the coals. My advice is to just compose a pre-written block log and template message for "possible" grawp socks. something neutral and clear explaining why the account was blocked preemptively and what the user should do if there is an error. Then it is just Ctrl/Cmd+V. Protonk (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't give him that recognition of "having his/her own template"; make it as neutral and generic as possible. Tan | 39 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No need for a WP space template. Just something scratched up in notepad. The template isn't for "him" per se. It is for the 1-10% of false positives made in preemtively blocking. Just in case the human behind the account isn't related to grawp then you have a short message saying that the account has been blocked for reason XYZ and unblock requests can be made by emailing OTRS (because the blocks disable talk page editing and email). Protonk (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just warn all new users not to make minor edits because if they do they will be blocked, abused, and prevented from making unblock requests? DuncanHill (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No doubt. Those two accounts fall quite short of the duck test. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? Quacks like an elephant. [43]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't come close to this one (the "alternative account" in question was, er, mine, as I created this one per email request). – iridescent 17:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I might not have made myself clear; I don't think these two accounts should've been blocked based on those contribs. –xeno (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at my earliest logged-in contributions, and by the standards of some I should have been indef-blocked, sworn at, and my talk page protected. DuncanHill (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's an obvious one: Jagger fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz¹¹ 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeske, the trouble with being so candid about one's disgust is that trolls find that interesting. They wonder what else gets under your skin and start poking. It is much better to keep cool and have a chuckle at their expense.[44] Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference between myself and you, Durova, is that I am much easier to get angry. Once I'm angry, I lash out, often violently. The only thing preventing me from going down and personally bashing that worthless little internet-toughguy twit's head into his monitor is the fact that I'd sooner not have an assault charge on my head. I'm not the most pacifistic guy on Wikipedia by *any* stretch of the imagination, and even I know when I have to ask friends to proxy as my eyes on /b/ and ED so I can make fun of all the crap Jarl throws at me that's flatly incorrect. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can't remain impartial you should recuse, as suggested above... –xeno (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I take *EVERY* form of vandalism as a slight, Xeno. Are you suggesting I give up the tools? -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't, Jéské. It's the surest way to get burned out and disillusioned. We are, after all, just janitors here, cleaning up the perennial mess of others. RBI just tells us to get the mop out, do the dirty work and move on. Taking things personally shows that vandalism gets to you and you'll end up being milked as a source of lulz (and attention - something Grawp lives for). Don't give them the pleasure - Alison ^❤ 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I just think you should try and be mindful of what you're committing to the log. –xeno (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See, there's one that passes the duck test! blocked. –xeno (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance but why isn't a quick checkuser performed on suspicious accounts before they are blocked preemptively? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser, by its very nature, is invasive of privacy, and as such Checkusers will not go on fishing expeditions. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 22:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So as if to endorse the point, Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis/JDH got his "personal army" to vandalize Jéské's talk page dozens of times tonight - as he does - with Jéské's alleged real name and a taunting message. I just oversighted the lot of them (so tough, Grawp). But this is what Jéské puts up with on a daily basis, and he is told to keep his cool when Grawp can do what he damn well pleases. Jéské know's Grawp's RL name, address, etc - who doesn't at this stage - but he's forbidden from mentioning them here. So on it goes ... - Alison ^❤ 08:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any evidence that Smokemirror86 was anything other than a legitimate new user. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, do socks usually enter an email address? I've unblocked - let's not bounce legitimate newbies off the wiki just because they make a few minor edits in succession. The first edit added a line to a list with an edit summary, the next couple fixed that same edit which they botched. Harmless. That's how newbies learn. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As regards Jarl, it should be noted I (and others) have been e-mail bombed by his socks before. Assuming a sock of Jarl won't enter an email address is wishful thinking. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I invite anyone to take a look at my earliest contributions [45]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of us have any problem with Jéské taking a "better safe than sorry" attitude with possible sleeper accounts like that. I don't. But I think what the problem is, is the possibility of a false positive with such an offensive edit summary. If that's a real newbie... they're probably gone by now. If it was one of our serial vandals, then they probably had a good laugh and continued right on. Just use a nice neutral block reason and move on, don't give them the satisfaction of reacting strongly, and they'll eventually lose interest and move onto somewhere else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I do have a problem with blocking someone based on this very circumstantial evidence. Reverting a few page moves is not a big deal. Losing a constructive contributor because we've blocked them on a hunch is. –xeno (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I quote: Jéské know's Grawp's RL name, address, etc - who doesn't at this stage. Where does the law come into this? Surely what Grawp is doing is classed as collateral damage? Can't we do anything to stop him? D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Short of getting someone from the Foundation to complain to his ISP, we don't have much we *can* do. Blocks are useless since he generally has sleepers; prots cannot be preemptive; his ISP killfiles or otherwise ignores abuse reports from volunteers. And actually, I don't know Jarl's address; just his name. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a lousy block carried out for no reason whatever & with an abusive summary. DuncanHill (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

I'm starting to notice what appears to be a few Jarlaxle Joe jobs badly trying to impersonate/imitate him. At present, they seem only to be vandalizing articles w/o page moves or doing page moves nothing like his (i.e. moving pages sans edit summary pointing to Jarlaxle's own Bill-O-sized ego). I hate to say this, but I think we may be becoming a battleground. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd believe that. Basically, he's turned into a bit of a lolcow and some folks are starting to have some fun with him. What can ya do only treat them all the same; WP:RBI and all that - Alison ^❤ 09:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The only good I can see coming from this is that Jarl'll probably be too distracted to pester me with wethers, especially since his trying to use my real name against me is now kinda starting to fall flat... -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 09:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Undeletion for historical purposes

I request that an admin restore the old history (from 2005 and 2006) to the Encyclopædia Dramatica and Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica articles. Please notify me if this is not the right board to post this.

NOTE: I am not a troll and this is not meant in any way, shape or form for trolling. The request is entirely out of personal interest and for historical purposes. Egebwc (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

You have a fascinating editing history. I find it highly unlikely that your request will be honored. Keeper | 76 05:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was a vandal from a long time ago, but these days I don't care about either Wikipedia or ED that much. I don't really plan to do anything here anymore. However, it would not hurt anything to restore the old history to that article: as I stated above, it is entirely out of personal interest and not in any way meant for harmful purposes. Egebwc (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Welp, I say no. Maybe someone else will say yes. You've given no compelling reason why, other than "historical purposes," the deleted history of one of our most controversial articles should be undeleted for your "personal interest." I'm leaving this to others, it's not at all entertaining. Keeper | 76 05:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need to do this. Several versions of ED were deleted through discussion at AfD and so should not be restored. Unless there's a really good reason (and it would have to be REALLY good), the answer would be no. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with restoring the page history. (Although I think Andrevan may have already beaten me to the punch.) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I just did so and merged the revisions from the "æ" version with the non-"æ" version. Andre (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering the rather strong points made above with regards to problems in the history, the now-existent properly sourced article, and the requester's own history, could you explain your reasoning for fulfilling the request? Tony Fox (arf!) 17:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So rather than showing the door to vandals, trolls and wiki-anarchists, we now give them what they want. I suppose it's an idea, but I'm not sure it's a good one. The history was of zero value, since a new sourced version was written. The request made absolutely no case for restoration, and there is some crap in there which I think we probably don't want. All this will do is facilitate any future attempts to revert to the deleted-as-crap version rather than the kept-as-marginally-notable version. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was appeasing any vandals or trolls by restoring the page history. The page was deleted not because it was crap but because it was non-notable, and since then it began to be covered in serious media outlets as a legitimate phenomenon. As such, the page history became notable as well. I do not see any strong points made here about why the history shouldn't be restored. It's not about to replace the current article -- that's not what history does. Andre (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"As such, the page history became notable as well." Huh? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Either way, since when do we undelete previously deleted articles when the topic becomes notable? The deleted revisions of the article have nothing to do with the current article. And the history merge from Encyclopædia Dramatica has created interesting revisions like the page being a redirect to itself. People won't have a clue what that's about. I honestly don't think what we've gained from this. (And this looks like fun, too.) --Conti|✉ 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I would've merged the histories, but I don't see any real harm. If there are confusing diffs, leave a note on the talk page explaining. But page history is important. If there's no reason to have the content deleted, restoration is fine. (By the way, that 'fun' diff is a template transclusion deprecation thing. It's intentionally like that so admins will use &action=protect instead of the old method. Whee, writing inside <small> tags is fun. I feel like I'm whispering.) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Admins routinely honour such requests at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Other uses#History-only undeletion. Graham87 05:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird "how do I" creations

We may have a really unusual problem here. I've deleted a slew of bizarre entries of late, all of which had "how do I create" such-and-such on Wikipedia. User:DAPHNAADRIENNE was the latest with a pure spam entry, since deleted. I'm of the opinion that this is a coordinated spam effort. Do you feel it's prudent to block these sorts of accounts? I haven't blocked one yet, but if I see another, I'm frying it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This: [46] is very weird indeed. I see no reason not to block the editors for being vandalism-only accounts. Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. "She" is about to be fried.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA

Resolved

WP:UAA is incredibly busy. Some eyes would be appreciated. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Smallman12q seems to have made several bad reports (some plainly wrong [e.g., User:Tim Warner, a not uncommon name, because—I'm not making this up—it's close to Time Warner], others just dubious); someone more familiar than I with our username policy may want to apprise him of our practices, emphasizing especially that UAA is for clear cases only (and, I guess, that supposed username policy violations are not always something about which to become exercised and should only be reported where a report is likely to prevent disruption or to impair our collaborative exercise). 69.212.15.60 (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

"Several" is an understatement - a number are, well, hasty, and others are simply bizarre. I've left him what I think is a balanced message pointing out where he's heading down the wrong track, and suggesting a few pointers as to how he can ensure a bit more accuracy in the future. _Gb^T/c 10:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jan 09

Resolved

Please take a look at the request for rollback page???? Waterjuice (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's lovely. Oh, and all requests have been dealt with. _Gb^T/c 09:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User:IslandShader

Resolved

 – blocked as sock of Historian19

Could an admin have a word with this user, please? He's new, and I left a note on his talk page because he used the f-word twice in one edit summary [47], and he took exception, leaving uncivil comments on my talk page [48] and continuing to swear in his edit summaries, like this [49]. I don't know how admins deal with this kind of thing, so here it is. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He is continuing to attack other editors [50] Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

With a nice edit summary! [51] This editor needs to have things explained in a way that might get through to him, by someone whose words carry some weight. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is probably in the wrong place - I'll post on the Wikiquette alert page. Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This was the right place. Indef blocked as a sock of Historian19 (talk · contribs) - I kept getting edit conflicts here last night, but I'd looked at his edits -- introducing lower case to proper nouns, introducing mispellings, large chunks copied from websites, etc. dougweller (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea he'd been around before, although in retrospect he did seem rather over-confident. At least it's resolved. Sometimes I struggle a bit to work out the best place to post these things :o Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

William Rodriguez article

This is a dispute that has continued for over a year, involving User:Contrivance and User:Wtcsurvivor (and socks), on the William Rodriguez article. The most recent sockpuppet accounts have been blocked, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wtcsurvivor. I do believe that Wtcsurvivor, if not the article subject (he denies it), has some close connection to the subject. He has been abusive in his editing, so think the block is warranted. But, I also see BLP problems with Contrivance's editing, which is helping to fuel things. Thus, blocking the socks is not enough to completely resolve the situation. The problems with these editors also extend to the Kevin Barrett and Carol Brouillet articles.

I'm not totally sure what to do about Contrivance's editing, but suggest perhaps a 9/11 topic (under the arbcom case) or BLP editing ban. I am not uninvolved in this matter, having tried to intervene in the past and editing related pages, and now won't edit that article. It would be good to get this situation resolved, but uninvolved admins are needed to look at the situation, including Contrivance's edits, to see if some admin action is warranted.

For background:

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive58#Help_needed_resolving_content_dispute_at_William_Rodriguez (Jan 2009)
• Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Wtcsurvivor
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Wtcsurvivor
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive476#William_Rodriguez (Sept 2008) and there have been other ANI notices that mostly fell on deaf ears, but hoping this time to get resolution to this.

--Aude (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Needless hostility over edits

I have been working on cleaning up Category:Attribution templates, and one "project" I have been working on is making sure that the articles with {{1911}} on their talk page are tagged with {{1911}} at the bottom of the actual article (which is what is supposed to be done, as per the instructions on the templates' documentation pages). I am doing this because I had nominated {{1911 talk}} for deletion earlier in the week.

User:Wetman, has, for reasons unknown, taken issue with this. I responded to his earlier message on my talk page, and he then launched a rather scathing set of responses on his own talk page. And as if that weren't enough, he then left me this joyous nugget of civility, which IMHO was completely uncalled for.

I am a longtime editor with rollback permission, and I have contributed a large amount of content here, including starting over 100 articles. I don't think there is anything wrong with what I am doing here, which is why I told Wetman that he can undo my changes himself if he feels I was wrong about tagging anything. I just don't understand why I am getting this level of resistance and hostility when all I am trying to do is improve the encyclopedia and make sure attributions are noted. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 11:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While Wetman's comments and tone is not constructive or helpful at all, and I cannot see any problem at a glance with what you are doing, the second paragraph of this edit probably wasn't the best response you could have made. It's best to keep the moral high ground rather than lower yourself to sarcasm. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

OK, fair enough. Perhaps I went a wee bit too far, but I wanted to make clear to him that he was making a mountain out of a molehill. I have collaborated constructively with a number of fellow users here, but every so often someone comes along and starts a conflict where none need exist. I maintain however that my edits were appropriate and violated no Wikipedia policy, and that my initial response to Wetman was appropriate. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would also like this page to be deleted. Thanks. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 11:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Your initial approach to the user was exemplary, in my opinion, and Wetman clearly was the first person to cross the line. It is unfortunate that sometimes an approach to a situation such as yours is rebuffed for no good reason at all. I have issued a warning on the user's page, if they continue with such clearly unacceptable remarks and behaviour, I think a short block is clearly warranted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Wetman's esprit might not be to everyone's taste, but "mindless" is precisely the right adjective for unwelcome, unnecessary, thoughtlessly applied, content free edits. The automated roll-out of which only serves as a soviet style make work initiative for other editors. Rather than being affronted by Wetman's hostility Eastlaw might like to take the occasion to reflect on the need for caution in the use of bots. Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree 100% with what Twospoonfuls wrote, I believe he's on the right track. There are a lot of valuable long-time contributors to Wikipedia who are alienated from the mainstream mind-set of Wikipedia, yet are basically good guys. All he wants to do is write good content for articles, but he despairs over the process-obsessed approach many Wikipedians have who have joined since him. Yes, he can be as pleasant as swallowing a porcupine at times; but I've always gotten along with him because I've been patient & greatly respect his intellectual rigor. And compared to some college professors I've had -- let alone autodidacts living in their parent's basements -- he's not at all arrogant or hostile. Just remember that it takes all kinds to write an encyclopedia -- & I hope we can keep him onboard so that Wikipedia will continue to improve in its content. -- llywrch (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lankiveil's talking of blocking is a complete overreaction. Wetman made a good point, and far from the reasons being "unknown", as Eastlaw would have it, and from there being "no good reason", as Lankiveil would have it, Wetman has in fact explicitly stated the reasons. I had little difficulty figuring out the reasons from reading what xe wrote, at least. ☺

The point is, quite simply, that tagging the article with {{1911}} in an automated fashion, which, whilst not perhaps "mindless" is certainly thoughtless, inasmuch as no apparent checking of whether the template actualy applies to the article as currently written is performed, is not necessarily doing the right thing. It is proper to actually put thought into whether the template should be applied. It isn't a task that can be performed robotically, not least because one has to compare the article text against the Britannica text. The additional point that Wetman made is that in many cases we didn't use Britannica text in articles at all, but grew our own articles from scratch.

Also note that this professed campaign to "reduce talk page clutter", and place it in the articles, directly contradicts other editors' campaign to reduce article clutter, and put it on the talk pages. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 24#"By-source categories".

Executive summary: The talk page template wasn't necessarily correct in the first place. It doesn't do the encyclopaedia any good to just swap templates about with automated tools if the templates do not actually apply. And this campaign by Eastlaw might be counter to consensus anyway. Uncle G (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

p-bot seems to be unapproved

Resolved

 – Blocked. — neuro^(talk) 09:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:P-bot seems to be an unapproved bot, or at least, one not operating in accord with policy (no user page, for example). Tb (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked MBisanz ^talk 06:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions policy change proposal

What is the correct location to post a proposal about a major change in Wikipedia policy/conventions? I am suggesting that all organism articles be titled with their scientific names according to nomenclatural codes. Where would I appropriately post an announcement of this discussion so that the most of concerned Wikipedians interested could comment or assist in drafting a usable convention? I've posted Wikipedia projects tree of life, birds, plants, animals, and alerted interested editors who have posted about plant articles. Where is a good centralized location? Could someone post a response on my talk page? Thanks.[52] --KP Botany (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A notice at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is a good place for a general notice on a policy/guideline issue. For tailored locations, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life all come to mind. There's Also {{Announcements/Community bulletin board}} and {{Cent}}. I am not suggesting you post to all of these places; I am just answering the question your post starts with.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I did post to the various naming conventions pages, and the discussion is at the primary one. I will post to Village pump (policy), also, then. What I wanted is the centralized location for editors concerned with policy that is not limited to those editors interested in naming conventions alone, pretty much the only part of policy I monitor. --KP Botany (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Thesamami

The user Thesamami's account is used primarily to add links to promote the news aggregation site Wopular. Hes been warned in the past by two separate people (comments below), all he did was remove those warnings from his talk page and continued to add more links to Wopular. I added more warnings today for his most recent edits. Something might need done with this account and/or allowing links to wopular.com in general. I pulled the conversation from the old admin notice archive(two comments below) and added my own. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thesamami (talk · contribs) seems to be an account devoted to promoting the news aggregration site Wopular. The contributions consist only of adding links to Wopular, sometimes replacing links to normal new sources with links to Wopular, and including links to pages that aren't about a specific article but are effectively search results that change over time (a violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID). I posted on the user's talk page about it, and my post was removed. Should anything be done? —KCinDC (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of your warning isn't a problem; as far as we're concerned, we know they saw it. Since the posting of links continued, I've left another warning. Let's see if they want to read (and follow) the guidelines. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hes also removed your warning without comment and added the link to 4 pages since. I warned up to warning level 4 today for his most recent edits and made sure they all was removed. It's pretty clear his account is primarily used to add those links. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

This user account User:Yodalee might be the same person, has the same pattern of adding links for Wopular and removing the warnings promptly from his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raeky (talk • contribs) 13:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RevisionDelete

I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Selective deletion#RevisionDelete regarding the formation of some sort of guideline about when it is and is not appropriate to hide log entries / page history entries. Please comment there. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb 09

Resolved

 – We're not going to out administrators, or even speculate on their ages, thanks. — neuro^(talk) 09:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell me the average age of these administrators??? Please let me know??? South Bay (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Users, including administrators, usually won't reveal private information such as name, age and similar information. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No shit sherlock!! South Bay (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The average age of this administrator is 45. I can't speak for the average age of any other group of "these" administrators, but I know severa who are older and some who are younger. And the relevance is? Guy (Help!) 08:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If that were an average over someone's lifetime, it would make xyr current age 90 — presuming that one meant arithmetic mean by average, of course. ☺

    Pick the mode. You'll have an average age of 21 for most of your lifetime. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think most admins are between 21 and 25.--Patton^t/c 17:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence quotient? RMHED (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

49/144. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• At least 100 years old. Protonk (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Get off of my lawn you damn kids! — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Latin Europe again

They are again problems on the article Latin Europe. I was already discussed here but the vandal who edits from returned. Actually, the article is permanently disrupted by an ip-editor since 9 January 2009. Since I would break the 3rr if I would revert the article again, I ask an administrator to do this. I also would ask an administrator to protect the page. --Olahus (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that no one else has so far complained of my edits, yet User:SamEV and User:Dbachmann have both already stated explicitly that they view your edits on Latin Europe as POV-pushing. Drop it - you're digging yourself an even bigger hole. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

SamEv is an editor since 2 weeks and I don't exclude the possibility that he might be a sock - maybe. Dbachmann didn't answer to your request in his talk page though you asked him for it. Let him say personally what he has to say. --Olahus (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? SamEV has been editing here for ages, both on Wikipedia and on the Latin Europe article. Let's see what he personally has to say? Yes indeed, let's: you seem to be some weird kind of Romanian patriot causing disruption at Latin Europe and elsewhere in the attempt to highlight your precious ethnicity. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The IP is obviously Iamandrewrice (talk · contribs). I'm going to bug Alison about this because the cu who reviewed my request never completed the check. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Note, a quick look at the user's contributions hightlights that he has been involved in many many Romanian related POV disputes. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Now a further two editors have just expressed disapproval of Olahus on the Latin Europe talk page. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

Checkuser has confirmed that Iamandrewrice and the IP user are highly likely related (thanks Alison). Can an administrator please semi-protect the article and talk page now? EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me but the last time I read the rules, a positive result must be obtained from checkuse for such a conclusion - this has not been given. "Likely" is far from "positive" - regardless, the number of users now expressing their support on the talk page for my version renders me partially obselete here now anyway. 84.13.166.159 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Highly likely is a positive result. Get real, please. --Deskana (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Likely" is just as apt to lead to blocks or semi's as "Confirmed"; stop lawyering. Semi-protected for two weeks apiece. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And IP blocked for a week, FWIW. Bencherlite^Talk 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

vandalism in Convert:Template (?)

There appears to be some kind of vandalism in the Convert Templates which are used to produce centimeters from inches, kilograms from pounds, etc. For example, Prairie dog is showing this type of vandalism. Some kind of 4chan meme ("herd you like mudkipz") has been inserted into the text somehow. I don't know enough about templates to figure out how to fix this type of vandalism, but it will probably appear widespread across the articles which are using the Convert templates. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. All of these templates used to be semi-protected, but MZMcBride (talk · contribs) reversed that months ago. - auburnpilot talk 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I've only been editing for a little while, i still haven't got the hang of the more complicated bits of coding. Teledildonix314 ^Talk ~ _{contributions} 22:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

PHG's mentorship and sourcing arrangement is both revised and extended; the full list of new conditions are available by clicking this link. Furthermore, the original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history has been rescinded. PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Any particular article may be added or removed from PHG's editing restriction at the discretion of his mentor; publicly logged to prevent confusion of the restriction's coverage. The mentor is encouraged to be responsive to feedback from editors in making and reconsidering such actions. Furthermore, the Committee noted that PHG has complied with the Committee's restrictions over the past ten months, and that PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects. PHG should be permitted and encouraged by other editors to write well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons, and to build trust with the community.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Thevandaminator Urgent action requested!

User:Thevandaminator is repeatedly removing SPAM tags from his article Showtime All-star Wrestling, despite repeated user warnings. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a SPA to me. My suggestion would be blocking him and deleting the Showtime All-star Wrestling and Sigmon articles which look both to be like a walled garden. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

per these diffs,[[53]] [[54]] [[55]] this SPA users beligerant behavior continues. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this problem user, I have most probably violated 3RR by my repeated undos of his removal of the speedy tags, and do not wish to be blocked. My apologies for the rules violation, I hope you can see past it. The suggestions issued above are not available to me, as I am NOT an Admin. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In addition based on the logs it's been deleted twice, and was recreated as soon as it's salting expired. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and salted; I will leave a message for its creator as to how to proceed. --Rodhullandemu 00:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The ball is in his court. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone speak Spanish?

I've run across a user with a lot of problematic image uploads that doesn't seem to be getting it. He's uploaded tonnes of photos of various Miss Dominican Republic photos sourced to various web pages and tagged them as released under free licenses, but provided no hint as to how and why this is so. I tagged a bunch of them as having unverified license, but so far all he's done is add another PD tag and remove the unverified tag from a couple of those images... Maybe he's trying to say he photographer (seems unlikely, but anything is possible), but that's far too much to assume based on the information he's provided so far.

I suspect maybe he just don't understand English though, maybe if someone could drop by User talk:MRDU08 and give a brief summary of the image copyright policies and such in Spanish it might help. --Sherool (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/Translators. Cheers! Kingturtle (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A good idea in theory, but after some quick spot checks a lot of users on that list seems to no longer be active. I'll give it a closer look when I have more time on my halds though. Just figured a fellow admin would be best suited to explain the problems to him if there where anyone around that happend to "hablan español". --Sherool (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Try giving what you want to say to him; I will translate it for him when I'm around later. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have 4,218 users who identify as native speakers of español. Actual figures will be at least 2× I'd guess. — CharlotteWebb 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my broken Spanish, I left a message for him regarding the ongoing uploading of unsourced images. If there's a reply, I'll do a 'down and dirty' translation of the specific policies. Skier Dude (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mimesis

I attempted to create μιμεîσθαι as a redirect to Mimesis because it is the Ancient Greek form, but I received a message stating that the title was on a blacklist. Would it be possible for an administrator to create it for me? Neelix (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a poor redirect; μιμεîσθαι does not correspond to mimesis. Deor (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The correct form, Μίμησις, already exists. There's no reason for the related Greek verb to redirect to the noun. Chick Bowen 23:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Decentralizing the Arbitration Committee

For anyone interested, I have proposed we decentralize the Arbitration Committee. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Worrisome

Guys, we need to open our eyes. The project is in jeopardy trouble. I think that, though RFA is an effective process, it needs to be revised so that people don't pass based just on popularity (not to say that relatively unknown users aren't passing, as long as they meet the criteria). But we really need to fully evaluate each candidate, not just pile on. Also, we've lost 21 admins since December. Sandy and the FAC crew are being slowed down by an overwhelming amount of FACs. We need to correct this significant, yet easy-to-fix issue. And soon. Ceran^→//forge 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How many admins does English Wikipedia have? How many does it need to function? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the number of administrators is about 852. Waterjuice (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is about changing RFA, the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. If it's about the FAC workload, I'm not sure how the number of administrators will affect that. Wouldn't just more eyes in general be the solution, with the mop or without? Or perhaps stricter requirement to entrance (perhaps requiring good-class rating for a certain period of time?) Either way, that belongs at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Besides, instead of looking at the ones who you know how left, I'm sure there are dozens who have quietly left without much impact on the project. I think one of the biggest problems we have is assuming anyone, any person, is so crucial that the project could not survive without them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

lysdexia

Can I have someone look at this? User:lysdexia was blocked for sock puppetry, and I have reason to believe that she has returned using her anonymous account, User talk:69.108.164.45. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, lysdexia was banned for disruption—by disruption, the admin means correction of his and the other users' mistakes they crave to keep. But lysdexia broke no explicit law—not 3RR. nor A?N, nor ArbCom, nor the mailing list for unblock requests. Each time the admin was the violator, and lysdexia their scapegoat. By the way, a sock puppet is a pretense, which a IP is not. -lysdexia 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.164.45 (talk)

Request an unblock at User talk:lysdexia in a way that people will actually want to unblock you and stop going around the block. Edit again and you'll be blocked for block evasion. Warned on the talk page as well, but it's clear from the history at User talk:Lysdexia that rotating IP addresses seem to be a constant strategy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Worrisome

Guys, we need to open our eyes. The project is in jeopardy trouble. I think that, though RFA is an effective process, it needs to be revised so that people don't pass based just on popularity (not to say that relatively unknown users aren't passing, as long as they meet the criteria). But we really need to fully evaluate each candidate, not just pile on. Also, we've lost 21 admins since December. Sandy and the FAC crew are being slowed down by an overwhelming amount of FACs. We need to correct this significant, yet easy-to-fix issue. And soon. Ceran^→//forge 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How many admins does English Wikipedia have? How many does it need to function? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the number of administrators is about 852. Waterjuice (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If this is about changing RFA, the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. If it's about the FAC workload, I'm not sure how the number of administrators will affect that. Wouldn't just more eyes in general be the solution, with the mop or without? Or perhaps stricter requirement to entrance (perhaps requiring good-class rating for a certain period of time?) Either way, that belongs at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Besides, instead of looking at the ones who you know how left, I'm sure there are dozens who have quietly left without much impact on the project. I think one of the biggest problems we have is assuming anyone, any person, is so crucial that the project could not survive without them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

lysdexia

Can I have someone look at this? User:lysdexia was blocked for sock puppetry, and I have reason to believe that she has returned using her anonymous account, User talk:69.108.164.45. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, lysdexia was banned for disruption—by disruption, the admin means correction of his and the other users' mistakes they crave to keep. But lysdexia broke no explicit law—not 3RR. nor A?N, nor ArbCom, nor the mailing list for unblock requests. Each time the admin was the violator, and lysdexia their scapegoat. By the way, a sock puppet is a pretense, which a IP is not. -lysdexia 04:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.164.45 (talk)

Request an unblock at User talk:lysdexia in a way that people will actually want to unblock you and stop going around the block. Edit again and you'll be blocked for block evasion. Warned on the talk page as well, but it's clear from the history at User talk:Lysdexia that rotating IP addresses seem to be a constant strategy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by YesOn8

YesOn8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s username seems to demonstrate support for California Proposition 8 (2008), which banned gay marriage. Since registering an account, his major contributions have been to add irrelevant images of BDSM activities to Violence against women. Considering the political position expressed in his username, the images appear intended for maximum shock value. Everyone else editing the article disagrees with him, but he won't stop. Erik9 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

YesOn8 has been blocked for 3RR, and his unblock messages use a tone that seems unlikely to win friends or influence people. EdJohnston (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have username blocked the editor. The editor was also under a new 48h block for disruptive unblock requests. I'm going to have to manually allow account creation after the first block expires, right (due to software limitations?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we've seen some socking, since then. I've checkusered the account and posted some findings at User talk:YesOn8. Since then, a few more apparent socks have turned up at Violence against women, editing from other IPs (possibly proxies) but pretty obviously related in some way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to enable suppressredirect for admins

See WP:VPR#Proposal: Enable suppressredirect rights for sysops on the English Wikipedia. Prodego ^talk 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done The right has been enabled on all wikis by Tim. Please keep in mind that you don't want to delete the redirect 95% of the time :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Can everyone please try and remember that AfD's are supposed to stay open for 5 days? Recently I've seen many discussions close after 3 days - it's great that we no longer have the closing backlogs, but people shouldn't be racing to close them like this because we miss a number of days of discussion. If you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 25, disregarding the speedy closures, you'll see many disucssions were closed on the 28th and 29th, 2 and 1 days respectively before they should have. Some were even closed as no consensus with just a couple of comments - they should be relisted after the full 5 days. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Many by admins and non-admins alike. There's no hurry to close these, especially the no consensus ones. If people are looking for something to do, Category:Articles lacking sources is fairly full and is more important. Majorly talk 13:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 26, you'll see quite a few have been closed within 2 days - that's simply unacceptable in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of those were ok "early" closes. I see several that were clearly CSD material, plus one jiffy merged. Any non-admin early close should results in a little talk-page chat with the party in question, however. - brenneman 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If interested in AfD why not rather weigh in on some that have little participation, or require research. Or drop by at WP:CSD, currently at 130 pages, images excluded.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you should warn any admin/user who makes such a mistake clearly and openly on their talk pages because it is breaking policy, if they make incorrect closes. Maybe that way they will notice it if they don't read AN (and not everyone does). Regards SoWhy 14:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The AfDs I've recently closed were mostly CSD material or WP:SNOW cases for either delete or keep. It is important to wait for a whole debate in case there are different opinions. Maybe we are a bit too generous with applying WP:SNOW when it looks obvious where the AfD debate is heading. The problem as I see is that some nominations don't get a proper attention at all so at the end there are only 1-2 comments. Seems most of the AfD patrollers focus on most recent days. An option would be to add some details to the closing policy, like that unless it is a clear speedy whatever, the debate should stay at least 3 or 4 days before early closure. At least informally. --Tone 15:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the times I do an non-admin close of an AfD it is only when the article has been speedy deleted or merged with another article. I won't do a WP:SNOW closure, I would only do the non-admin closes when it's needed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is covered formally at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion where it says that articles are debated five days and in Wikipedia:Deletion process which basically suggests only to work on the 'Old' section' that is where "the day page (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Year Month Day) that is more than five days old should be moved here. The decision to keep or delete a page is to be implemented only after this move has been performed." If respected, this process would ensure that even the youngest debate on the log file itself is at least five days old. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (I've brought this concern up at WT:AFD, but since this discussion is now taking place here...) This is part of a shift that has been happening at AfD over many months. At first it started to become routine to close AfDs a few hours early, then a half-day, and before long it was routine to close them once they were at least four days old rather than the five days that the policy asks. It is not surprising then that more and more discussions then start to be closed even earlier. As things stand now, it is rare (unless relisted) that a discussion lasts the full five days. Cautious admins who want to close AfDs only once the full 120 hours have elapsed do not get to, because all AfDs now are being closed by admins who have at least a mild willingness to disregard policy. This was addressed previously on this noticeboard, but things have not changed so far. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ryan here (wtf, I know). AfD discussions should by and large run the full five days. The only early closures should be for ridiculously obvious SNOW closures - and even at that, I think people misinterpret SNOW to mean "snowball", or a runaway string of similar !votes. it means "not a snowball's chance in hell", which should be reserved for only the most "oh, HELL no" discussions. Tan | 39 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the disadvantage of abbreviated guidelines and policies. They tend to cause misinterpretation... - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If we have a look at the January 24 and 25 log, almost all the discussions are closed already, and a great part of 26 as well. I support the suggestion that we should be more strict with not closing nominations too early. Meaning, not even starting to browse the log of a recent day with an intention to close AfD. And non admin closures should follow the same rules as well, except for obvious speedies. Reminding admins who close the debates too early is a good idea (worked with me, I rethought it all over again and realized that early closures are generally not the best thing to do). --Tone 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

so it seems that if we re-emphasize that in policy, as we should, we should not suggest 3 or 4 days. it should simply say 5 days unless speedy, and snow closes should go back to being IAR exceptions. DGG (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with those above, AFDs should not be closed before five days are up in the large majority of cases. We should give people the full five days to give more chance for editors to find, for example, new sources to prove notability or find evidence to show an article is a hoax. Deletion Review sometimes get people coming with new sources after an AFD is closed and we should try and keep this to a minimum. Any admins (or non-admins) who are generally closing AFD before they go on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old should be pointed towards the Wikipedia:Deletion policy which is clear that "The discussion lasts at least five days". Davewild (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The 3 or so recent discussions I've read had editors consistently expressing their concerns that AfDs were frequently closed early. The next step is to identify questionable closures and contact the closers directly, pointing to these concerns. I expect that there will be push-back and more discussion. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. One reason I hate sending anything to AfD is that I know I make mistakes, & too few people bother to do more than glance at the name of the article & the rationale before voting to delete. As a result, I know of a lot of doggy articles in my corner of Wikipedia that should probably go -- but I'm not going to send them to that abattoir unless I'm 110% sure they should be deleted first. Were people willing to let discussions run a full 5 days, it would make deletions a far more reliable act. -- llywrch (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, despite WP:AGF; we still have WP:BURDEN. WP:AFD can have the effect of concentrating the minds of article creators, and indeed bring new editors into the arena. If nobody is that committed to at least minimally working on the article, there's a case to be made to delete it anyhow, and if anyone comes along later who is more committed, the article will be defensibly created. Five days seems to me to be a reasonable time to permit constructive criticism, and I've seen very few AfDs relisted for further input; most seem to me to achieve consensus within a day or so. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This has now also been brought up at the village pump and Ive invited editors there as well to remind closers if necessary they do not have the right to unilaterally shorten debate times unless there are specific reasons such as speedy or snow closures which should be marked as such.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cross-posted from WP:VPP These are some stats that I cooked up independently of this thread that you guys might be interested in:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 25 (1 day before closures should occur), all of the 75 AfDs on that page have been closed (100%).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 26 (2 days before closures should occur), 43 out of 117 AfDs on that page have been closed (36.7%).
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 27 (3 days before closures should occur), 33 out of 114 AfDs on that page have been closed (30%).
• From my test sample (January 25 - 27) the average AfD was only open for 3 days, at least two days short of required.

I also agree with the points brought up by Ryan. Lately, Mathbot goes to update the /Old page and it doesn't put any AfDs on the page, they've already been closed early. If anyone is interested in some more detailed stats over longer time periods, I have a script to analyse AfD pages, and if you ask nicely (;) ) I might get you your stats. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 11:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

How about an update to {{Afd2}} to clearly show the expected debate closure date ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, as I wrote to Foxy Lady at village pump,

For another view on AfDs, see my reseach: User:Ikip/AfD_on_average_day, although I am still compiling the information, it shows clearly the majority of articles put up for deletion are created by new editors.

Also see my comments here: WT:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_create_real_change_at_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion Most "elite" editors are going to be resitant to change. Editors who frequent Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion are elite editors (editors with 10,000 or more edits), so although there is consensus on those two pages against change, that does not mean that wikipedia as a whole would embrace such change. If you are willing to create a RfC in a week or so, keeping in mind my suggestions in my "How_to_create_real_change" posting, I would support it.

Administrators seem consistently resistant on any constrants on their administrative duties. Making 5 days mandantory will be difficult, unless a large majority of wikipedia is aware of the RfC. Ikip (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently five days are mandatory. So it might be useful to separate the question of reinforcing this, which is the topic of this thread, from any proposed changes to or comments on existing policy regarding AfD. I think and hope for the first we can make progress without an RfC which would not be about 'real change' in your sense in any case.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, if there is a clear consensus, there shouldn't be a limit as to how long the discussion needs to stay open. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We still have WP:COMMON. — Aitias // discussion 21:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

We do, sure. However, it occasionally happens that the article that would otherwise be deleted gets expanded ir otherwise improved so that deletion is not that obvious anymore. If the debate is closed in 2-3 days, users may not have enough time to do that. Still, most cases where a consensus is obvious are either inappropriate nominations (if keep) of something from the CSD list anyway. If speedy, ok. If not, where's the harm in having the debate open for 5 days? --Tone 22:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that many editors do not visit wikipedia every day and keeping AFDs open for five days gives us a better chance that the creator or editors with knowledge of a particular topic will come forward and produce new evidence or rewrite articles to change the course of an AFD. All prods take five days and they are meant for uncontroversial deletions, surely for AFDs we can at least give them the same time to try and make sure the result is correct. Davewild (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. I've noticed the trend of early AfD closures too and I am glad that someone has taken the trouble to address this issue here. In the future, I'll be looking out for such closures and asking the closers to revert them if they are not SNOW cases; if the closers decline, I think that such closures should be overturned at WP:DRV.  Sandstein  22:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note following Foxy Loxy's stats a few comments above; those for the 25th would appear to include AfD that have been up for discussion for up to 9 or 10 days (because they were relisted), before being closed, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi. In my view, relisted Afds can be closed at any time after 5 days so long as consensus has become clear and not go through a further mandatory 5 days of discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Section break

It seems that we need to get the word out or something, because there were 30+ discussions open on January 26, but now that the page has finally gotten to /Old, there are only 7 open, so a bunch of discussions are still being closed early. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 00:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I try to follow AfD on the last day to get a sense of the community opinions and maybe will chime in on occasion to help build a consensus. Having most discussions closed when I get there is frustrating. Contrast what happens here with CfD or TfD. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to build a list of people who closed them early and let them know of this discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note, since this thread, the average close time for January 26 has jumped to 4.6 days open on average. The people who closed AfDs on the 26th are Bearian, David Eppstein, Synergy, Tone, Aitias, MacGyverMagic, Cirt, MBisanz, and Eluchil404. I will inform those users out of that list who have not posted on this page already of this discussion. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The one I closed was a G4 speedy deletion. I think procedural closures of AfDs where the article has been deleted for some other reason than the consensus of the discussion, such as a valid speedy, are in a different category from early closure of normal AfDs, and are much less problematic. I wouldn't want it to be possible to set up an AfD as a way of delaying a valid speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm not accusing you, I just have a script that lists who closed debates. I also agree with you on that front. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Foxy Loxy for a pointer to this discussion. It is worth discussing where the cuttoff between WP:SNOW and standard closures should be set. I always felt that 120 hours (24*5)was plenty of time, since I never quite understood when the Old page gets updated. The change from continuously backlogged to completely done after 4 days largely happened while I was on a wikibreak so I assumed that it had a wider consensus than it clearly does. As an aside, I don't think either of my Jan 26th closures count as early by any standard but I would like to know what people think about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Hallquist since I don't consider it early but some of the discussion above implied that it would be seen as so. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've closed several AFDs between the 96 hour and 120 hour cutoff on the fifth day. Generally I leave debates that have had a recent comment. I think there is a misconception that AFDs are commented on through the entire five days. Look for instance at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BB_Tanks, I technically closed that 11 hours early. But it had not had a comment for 100 hours. Was there anything gained by leaving it open longer? What I would like to see is that it become permissible to relist debates that have comments, but are close, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel J. Piette. I think relisting at least one round on those would produce better results. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is you don't know if someone will comment in the last 11 hours, and you can't know unless you leave it open, like a user above said (quote) I try to follow AfD on the last day to get a sense of the community opinions and maybe will chime in on occasion to help build a consensus. Having most discussions closed when I get there is frustrating. (end quote) it appears that there are users to wait till the end to vote, and not knowing if the debate is going to be open or closed the next time you check is both irritating to the user, and shows that perhaps we are not getting a clear perception of the consensus if we are closing debates early. Additionally, I don't understand why it is a race to close the AfDs first, just wait till they get to /Old, if everyone does that then there will be a ton of AfDs to close when mathbot updates the page. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that care should be taken with SNOW closures. If these are closed early, people can push their opinion by finding a couple of like-minded editors and swamp the debate with a flurry of similar comments. Debates should especially stay open when the topic is obviously contentious or otherwise controversial. The few discussions I remember closing soon were either relists, proven hoaxes or discussions where commenters unanimously agreed the nomination was deliberately flurious (sp?). If I have made a mistake, I'm always open to discussion on my talk page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• While I have already commented briefly above, I think it's appropriate to leave a longer comment — after having been asked by User:Foxy Loxy at my talk page. Yes, I have closed numerous deletion debates, that had not been opened for at least 5 days; and I will continue doing so. Though, I deem it necessary that the deletion debate in question has to meet some particular criteria so that it can be closed early:
  • (1) Still, it should have been opened for about 4 days.
  • (2) In this time there was significant participation. 4 people (including the nominator) agreeing unanimously that the article should be deleted constitute a minimum threshold.
  • (3) As already mentioned, the result must be blatantly clear/unanimous.
• If the deletion debate in question does meet these criteria there is usually no harm in closing it early. Of course there are exceptions and this is the reason why the closing administrator should decide on a case-by-case basis whether it's appropriate and reasonable to close the deletion debate early. I honestly believe that there's no need for a strict limit: As I've written already above, we have WP:COMMON. Using that every administrator should be able to decide whether an early close is appropriate in the particular case. Doing so the prementioned criteria will represent a good guideline, I think.
• Let's not eliminate the administrative discretion entirely, fellows. Sapere aude, please! — Aitias // discussion 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
• Mea culpa - I sometimes close discussions that are speedy keep per WP:HEY, perhaps once a month. However, I take each and every deletion that I do very seriously, and keep track of them. My most recent list of delete closures are at User:Bearian/Deletions#January_2009, which include only two from WP:AFD. As may be seen, over the past year and longer, I have been closer fewer per month, and waiting longer to do so, as I get more experience. While I understand how a nominator takes a lot of time and effort to nominate articles for deletion, I also hold WP:IAR dearly when it comes to keeping improved articles and deleting articles that, while technically not speedy, violate some policy or other. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC) An analysis may help the discussion: I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander v. State of Alaska, et al. with three related stubs, after about 4 days and 8 hours on the list, and when another editor invoked the snowball clause.[56] I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Kohler after listing of 4 days, 7 hours, with no serious objections. I am not against a general rule of 7 days on the XfD list, but there are times then WP:BLP and common sense dictate an early closure. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Early deletes

I think this is a bit absurd. If you cross check the amount of keeps vs. deletes you'll see that more are closed early as delete, than keep. If we're going to hold a discussion that effects early closure, we had better involve the other half. Deletes should wait as well. Synergy 02:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm all for holding all discussions that aren't SKs, SNOWs, and SDs for the full 5 days. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 03:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • agreed -- that was what I at least always thought was really intended. We could reduce the number of obvious delete AfDs that we now tend to close quickly in two ways: First, checking for obvious copyvios, especially for anything that seem written professionally in a spammy fashion, in which case AfD is unnecessary. Second, using Prod more--of course, if people are stubborn enough to remove a prod without reason, we'd still gett hem, but at least trying could get maybe 20 or so a day out of AfD. DGG (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of PROD is that they should be uncontroversial. In my personal opinion it's already overused. I've seen several articles prodded with comments by the nominator that wouldn't get anything near a deletion outcome in AFD (which is essentially what prod candidates are supposed to do). I think that the PROD template should clearly state that removal without a reason will be ignored. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Discussions that are closed early as delete should only be closed if either (a) a speedy deletion criterion applies, or (b) the discussion doesn't stand "a snowball's chance in hell" of having a non-delete outcome and leaving the discussion open would be unnecessarily disruptive.

  Note the addendum there. There's no reason that we cannot wait the full period in discussions where disruption isn't occurring. Oftentimes such an early closure is actually the cause of disruption, because it stifles discussion and gives editors the impression their arguments being steamrollered over and ignored. Indeed, there have been many thousands of AFD discussions over the years where participation has been high and consensus has been unanimous, and we have allowed discussions to run for the full period with no ill effect whatsoever.

  Also note, as observed above, the correct meaning of a "snow" closure. It does not mean obeying the whim of a rapidly formed group of pile-on editors. Indeed, the very rapidity of such a pile-on makes it suspect, as it means that editors aren't performing the independent double-checking of one another's conclusions that they are supposed to be doing, and that makes AFD work. Observe that in the past we've had several huge pile-ons, that have switched completely around after one editor found sources or performed a rescue. It's not safe to rush AFD. Uncle G (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do bear in mind that a lot of listings on any given AFD day are relists, and they may be closed before a further full five-day period has elapsed. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion period extension to seven days

One of the interesting ideas brought up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Proposal to discourage early "delete" closes is the idea of extending the AFD discussion period to seven days. Including the input of editors who are (for example) only able to participate at weekends seems like a good idea. Please join in that discussion if you are interested. Uncle G (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing DRVs

I've listed nine bad premature closures from January 29 at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1 after the closing administrator in question declined to relist them.  Sandstein  09:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Any thoughts on this one? A non-admin closure within ten minutes of being listed? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the nominator had a history of disruption – which I'm not seeing – no way was that close legitimate, even though it's fairly obvious to me which way the AFD would go. – iridescent 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:South Bay#Geico. The nominator had a couple of articles deleted and was making a series of pointy AfD nominations in response. Speedy closing of those AfDs looks good to me. Deor (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a nomination that – bad faith or not – was obviously very poorly judged. The company (from the infobox present on the article) has nearly seventy thousand employees and hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. As Deor notes, the user made a similarly POINTy nomination of another major insurance company. When it's that obvious which way the AfD will go, an immediate close is entirely appropriate. While premature closes by non-admins may be an issue at AfD, this instance wasn't a problem; it was a good application of WP:IAR to avoid wasting a lot of people's time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now I see the context, it was a good close. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright review

I came upon an article tagged for investigation at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and found extensive violation. (Version has since been deleted; see it at [57], admins. Non-admins and admins alike can read some specifics at Talk:Hospice care in the United States. And I have to note here that I am terribly impressed with the efforts made by a new contributor to fill this gap.)

Looking at the contribution history of the contributor who first added the text (Mgreason (talk · contribs)), I have found other articles of concern. One has been listed at WP:CP. Others I've revised on the spot (such as Thomas H. Friedkin). One the contributor revised himself, though probably not enough. In addition to the large chunks of duplicated material from plainly copyrighted sources such as existed at Hospice care in the United States, I'm seeing quite a bit of piecemeal infringement, where the contributor scatters sentences copied from other sources throughout the article or revises text minimally, but not enough to escape infringement.

I'm not assuming bad faith here, particularly as this contributor usually does cite the source, even while infringing on it, but as this contributor was first advised of our copyright policies (that I've noted) in October 2007, here, well over a year before pasting (for example) all but the opening paragraph of this page onto Wikipedia, I think this scrutiny is required. At the very least, there is a profound misunderstanding of WP:C, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that infringement may be extensive. (I've been engaging the contributor in conversation about this at his talk page, but response has been rather slight so far. I guess the only way to know if he or she understands better now will be to check back in the future.)

I'm very open to ideas for how to most efficiently and effectively address this matter. This kind of investigation is time consuming, and this contributor has been prolific: User:Mgreason/MyWikiPages. I suspect my usual approach to copyright problems is more thorough than efficient, and it is not best for these kinds of situations (since I do have some semblance of a "real life".) Ideas and/or assistance would be greatly appreciated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just wanted to note since that contributor's page has a lot of recent material from me that I have notified him or her of this discussion, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Until the editor—of whose good faith there is, as you say, no doubt, and who is quite likely, having been apprised of why his edits are inconsistent with WP:C, to prove unproblematic in the future—demonstrates (or at least avers) that he understands the problem, we would do well not to DYK anything he/she creates without doing a quick copyvio check; that Brenton Butler case, which had a few attribution problems, as diligently outlined by Moon (and, really, enough POV and style issues that it should have been disqualified in any case) made the Main Page disquiets. 69.212.204.14 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at one at random, Basketball at Lake City Community College seems to be mostly a copy-paste of this article, with some superficial paraphrasing. Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pitching in. If anyone else is willing to help, I was considering that it might avoid duplication of efforts to put a note on an article's talkpage indicating that it has been checked. Is anybody else willing to help? Please? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

←Help much needed. I have unilaterally decided that tracking this cleanup was an excellent idea and that maybe if I am proactive in implementing something, others will know how to contribute. :) I've duplicated this user's self-tracked major contributions at User:Moonriddengirl/sandbox and stricken the articles that have been checked so far either by me or somebody else, noting with a {{y}} where problems (even minor ones) have been detected and addressed, either by cleaning or listing at CP. Please, if you have time, grab one or two of these, check them out and strike them off. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at a handful, and I'll try check some more later today. Zagalejo^^^ 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion request

I indefblocked Godvia (talk · contribs) yesterday based on what looked to me like a clear pattern of disruption and harassment (with precisely zero mainspace contributions to potentially offset it). However, to judge by assorted comments on the talkpage assorted people are taking exception to the block; can someone uninvolved offer a second opinion and either endorse or overturn it as they see fit. (Ignore the torrent of abuse aimed at me and Chicken Wing after the block, which I'm willing to put down to frustration, and just judge by the edits prior to that.) – iridescent 13:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems clearishly-cut (I was ready to endorse the block only after reading the edit summaries, and looking at the actual edits did nothing to change my mind). I'd say unblock in the event of an unblock request that includes a credible commitment to be nice, but I can't imagine that such a thing is forthcoming. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What's this? An admin with gasp! block remorse?  :) The only comment I see that opposes the block is from the blocked user themselves. You made a decision, that should be the end of it, just my nickel. ArcAngel (talk) 13:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Sarcasticidealist - indefinite does not mean infinite and, although I would have considered a week long block as a starter sanction, the editor can always avail themselves of the unblock request process and acknowledge past problems to get the block reversed. Their subsequent posts does not inspire confidence that they might take that route. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Support block per my ANI comment. Since on his talk page, the editor objects to the 'vandalism' line in the block, you might consider changing the block reason to Disruptive Editing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Provocative edits by Fred new

I want to draw the admins' attention to an unwarranted edit by User:Fred new that effectively deleted a paragraph containing Israeli professor Dr Kraiz' opinion about Khazars -- [58]. I know the editor quite well from the Russian WP and he has a track record of effectively prohibiting any one he disagrees with from taking part in the relevant Russ WP article (ru:Хазарский каганат - See the edit history there). Therefore, i strongly believe that he ought to be warned that such behaviour is not allowed here.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD is the appropriate response, I suggest. I have not looked over the article, but would I be correct is saying that Fred new's edits are a departure from the existing consensus? If so, then the onus is on the Bold editor to justify their inclusion - and the provision of third party sources that reference them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

IP drops own personal information

Resolved

 – Revision selectively deleted. –xeno (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I need an admin quickly at Talk:Alicia Keys. An IP has put his/her own address at the bottom on their edit. For the safety for this person, think that it's more appropriate for that edit to be deleted. DiverseMentality 20:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Xeno (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is on it. Tiptoety ^talk 20:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done... Sometimes I think it's best to Special:Emailuser/Oversight (just paste the diffs and a brief explanation) as it won't bring it (briefly) to everyone's attention. They are usually quite quick. –xeno (talk)

I'll make sure to do that next time. Thank you for the help. DiverseMentality 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of baiting

I'd like to start a discussion on how we, as administrators, should respond to suspected or obvious baiting of restricted editors. (Please, no specific examples) Generally speaking, editing restrictions are in place after a long and torturous series of bad interactions and failed administrator interactions with one or more editors entrenched in a battleground mentality. Often, these people have legitimate on wiki-enemies who are perfectly willing to make them miserable

My position has always been to enforce the editing restrictions, but also swiftly and harshly come down on those baiting the restricted. Then again, that is difficult to prove, so it holds more weight in theory than in practice. I do know that restricted editors with rare exceptions, are not second class wikipedians - they deserve the respect, dignity, and process that anyone else deserves (whatever you think of those things, it should be applied equally).

What do you think?--Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I think baiting tends to be relatively obvious, and I think the best way to stop it is with a short sharp slap upside the head, followed by increasingly large hits with a cluebat until the baiter stops. I have zero patience for someone poking an animal in a cage. //roux   17:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deciding if something is baiting is highly subjective.

Baiting is one of several words on Wikipedia that can be used as name calling, attacking and a device to arrest discussion.

The mother policies/guidelines here are Civility and AGF. For example in discussion off Wiki with other adults, if someone disagrees or has some critical position of the topic, or of you, if you want the discussion to continue then one doesn't call out "baiting". One attempts to address the speaker (AGF) and the objections in a civil way or the discussion deteriorates. Of course even here if something is foul one walks away. Shouting matches, accusations and name calling seldom help anyone or anything, and baiting is used this way.

Some editors are intimidated from entering certain discussions, and may wait or watch to see if there is a point where they have something to contribute but which won't cause an attack on themselves. This isn't baiting although often called so ... Its fear. There is fear of, on and off Wiki retribution.

Off Wik and on Wiki there are situations in which so-called "gatekeepers" guard certain areas, fields of knowledge or environments. Knocking on the "gates" by someone not considered acceptable by those inside the "gates" may be called baiting, a way of effectively getting rid of that person.

Banning or blocking more subjective areas that require more subjective decision making requires greater care than obvious objective violations like 3RR.

The longer then ban or block the more detailed the research, and the more time and care needed... and possibly the more input from multiple admins. Its hard to back down from a shoot first and ask questions later decision.

My point I guess that baiting can be much less than obvious... care needed.

Just some thoughts (olive (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

• In some cases I would leave it to the restricted editor; if they choose not to interact on their talk page with someone then we should help them to make that work; if they ask for help because they are being baited then we definitely should pitch in. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How often does that happen in your opinion?--Tznkai (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, for values of sometimes in the range always > sometimes > never. User talk pages are a favourite place for this kind of thing, and keeping the baiting off there can at least give the user some breathing room. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• The general accumulation of arbitration findings over the years has led to an increasing number of sanctioned editors whose unsanctioned antagonists feel that they have been proved right. There have been cases where baiting has been obvious and editors have been criticised for it, but there have been others where it has been borderline. I think there should be a word of guidance about it somewhere in policy, but the general principle should be that baiting a sanctioned editor is liable to lead to sanctions being extended to the baiter. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless of course, the Arbcom imposed the sanction in order to have the sanctioned editor driven off by baiting. Which was entirely the point of a sanction passed agains me by the previous Arbcom. Giano (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if you only knew how much the Arbitration committee had protected you over the years. It is a thankless task sometimes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected me from what? Its own members and former members? The ones who always rushed with such obscene speed to accept any case that could possibly be turned and twisted to include me? The old Arbcom were a disgrace, and I for one, will not be forgetting that or those behind such actions and their reasons. Giano (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

...perhaps proving Sam's point. --Deskana (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I remember both of you voting for that ridiculous sanction, which proved not only to be a monumantal error, but also showing the old Arbcom up for exactly what it was, malicious and spiteful. Now, I have better tings to do than argue self-justifications with you two. Giano (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

All evidence to the contrary. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah - if you can't remain on topic, comment somewhere else, please. If I want a Giano-Deskana-Sam Blacketer fight, I'll put your names in the title of the thread.--Tznkai (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I, an editor under a sanction placed by Blacketer and Deskana, happen to be happen to be being bated and trolled as we speak, but that is of no interest to you, all you want to do is talk about it - not actually do anything about the problem. So I deal with it myself - always the best way I have fond. Admins? God, all you can do is talk. Giano (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realise you've only got a week of it left? Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking mirrored sanctions? or something else? What do we count as biating anyway? General taunting? Unsubtle references to the editor in edit summaries?--Tznkai (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a difficult issue precisely because it's so difficult to define and recognize objectively. Whatever heuristics we might devise, I have a feeling people will find some subtle way around them. It may get more obvious when the baiting involves a departure from the user's regular editing behavior, at least. Sometimes a gentle reminder is enough to get someone to stop (I've seen that work well enough, on blocked users' talk pages); when that fails, perhaps it's time to get more people involved? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have definitely seen times when a user requested another user to leave their page, and the visitor kept coming back.Even if not meant such action would be baiting, I guess. At the same time I've seen admins and editors leave civil warnings on a page only to have the owner bite them. Perhaps baiting on a user page should be a little more serious as an offense since it means there could be some "following around" and deliberate intent. Leaving when someone asks you to leave unless you are an admin dealing with some business is only civil and respectful of another users space. As always care needs to be taken because these can subjective judgments much of the time. Possibly a user who feels they are being baited on their page should be aware that outside help is available as Guy suggests. Just making it clear that someone with teeth will be invited in may deter the baiter, and no further action would be necessary.(olive (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Do you have any examples or situations in mind? In my experience most accusations of baiting boil down to a "devil made me do it" excuse. The claim is often made in bad faith by trolls or sockpuppets trying to muddy the water, meatpuppets to justify each other's bad behavior, or by fringe-y, paranoid, or just off base users who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. They feel that everyone is against them, and blaming it on baiting rather than questioning why, is a way of avoiding responsibility. In similar fashion, problem users often accuse people of harassing or stalking them when they are merely responding to a series of abuses, or they are engaging in a legitimate review of an editor's recent edits. Usually the claim is an assumption of bad faith, made up without any evidence other than that someone does not want to deal with something. People do not own their talk page or their account - we are all here for the betterment of the encyclopedia. There is a dispute resolution process when someone is out of line, starting with a comment or courtesy notice on their talk page. It's fair to ask an editor for no unnecessary comments on their talk page, or to tell them you do not want to discuss a particular matter. But it is not legitimate to say that you do not want any notices at all on your talk page, or that you will not respond to conversation on article talk pages. True, some people do need understanding, encouragement, support, and a space to cool down. As a non-administrator, if your attempts to get someone to behave are not working you might just have to back down rather than issue warnings or revert or report bad edits. As an administrator, you sometimes have to either take action or stop complaining - scolding and warning have their limits. My concern is that setting up a formal baiting policy will only enable these people to game further, or feel more paranoid. The best way to handle people who are being to harsh or baiting a troll is a friendly word on their talk page. If they won't stop, we already have plenty of behavioral policies we can use if necessary. The only bad baiting behavior I common see is when people gang up on editors who have been blocked, to tell them off on their own talk page. Is there a similar problem with people harassing editors they know to be on some kind of probation? Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I could give examples/diffs but I am reluctant to do so as the time and place may not be appropriate to present anything that could be considered accusatory. I would tend to see this as more of a general discussion.(olive (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I'll take your word for it - I just hope that in any formulation of behavioral guidelines improper baiting can be distinguished from simply getting into a tiff with or trying to deal with a difficult editor.Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I agree with Tznkai that we should "swiftly and harshly come down on those baiting the restricted." That especially applies to frivolous arbitration enforcement requests.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but harsh is, well, pretty harsh...and encompasses within its definitions "cruel"..perhaps sternly is a word that would allow for less misuse.(olive (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

It's agreed then: stern.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CU and OS elections

The proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight appointments has passed and been made a policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections. Consequently the first English Wikipedia CU and OS elections will begin this Friday. For details see: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 For the arbitration committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC) (main post at WP:AC/N, cross posted here)

Discuss this

People can't oppose? That isn't going to give good results....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the concept is that the Committee (that's you, right?) agrees that all the candidates are qualified to be appointed, so the community is being asked only to decide which of the pre-approved candidates actually get named. This procedure may be worth a test, to avoid rampant nastiness of some other election-type processes, but it assumes that all possible negative information has already been considered by the Committee, which may not be true. I suspect negative information will still be posted in the comments section and the talk page (unless the clerks remove it). There should also be a clearly worded solicitation on the page that editors with negative information should email the Committee. Thatcher 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with YellowMonkey. With all due respect to Arbcom, there are some candidates there I wouldn't trust at all, regardless of whether Arbcom's vetted them. Approval voting only works if a large cross section of the community participates; this will just be a "who has the most buddies?" poll. – iridescent 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but Thatcher, you're just guessing, and the ArbCom appears to be unwilling to respond to people about this issue. As it stands, the procedure without approval voting has a lot more support than the same procedure with approval voting. That's not how consensus works. What's the rush, why not discuss a bit? >Radiant< 17:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask you all to centralize your discussion at WT:AC/N as linked above?--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of actress Alison McAtee

Resolved

Page of actress Allison McAtee was made not correctly with her name. She is Allison (with two "ll") but not Alison

this mistake also in info of the external site http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1526617/ her name obviously also Allison -with two "LL"

thank u Nikapnz (talk) 05:23, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Resolved by User:January on 12:59, April 9, 2011 Robman94 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)