Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive183

Anon probs

Previously left on discussion page in error. Please help me with [1] and [2], they are the same person who is disruptive, I found with 2 anon IP's (they admitted on my talk page) is all over user talk pages giving their personal "knowledge" of drug effects and "highs", and please read the bizarre exchange at the bottom of my talk page. I don't usually get involved in these things but there is a problem here. Thanks. :Esp the statement: "What else can I do to remove drug-forum-like information from the article and discourage this kind of drug-abuse?". Mjpresson (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From that Anon: Very simple, dosage information for medications does not belong into WP, per WP:MEDMOS. Dangerous "Recipes" how-to-misuse medications, e.g. how to boil nasal inhalers in vinegar to eat them, don't belong there either and create liability concerns. To advise authors of such additions to stop that and get a life and an education seems appropriate to me. Regards. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also prefer not to be slandered for removal of such recipes. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

My concern is multiple anon accounts and leaving "warnings" about drug use on multiple editors talk pages and name-calling and insults. If you read the notes inserted by that anon above, I think the person is unclear just what purpose WP editors serve.Mjpresson (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

May I correct that: I never have multiple anon accounts, but a variable IP address, which changes on every new start. I have not left warnings in multiple pages, but got angry with the editor of dangerous abuse "recipes" indeed. I have not called him names. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 01:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

3 Good 1 Comment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

3 Good 1 Comment (talk · contribs). Anyone want to hazard a guess who's behind this and what they're up to? At the very least someone needs to keep an eye on this one. – iridescent 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just looks like a drama generator to me - nothing blockable yet, but this is way off. — neuro^(talk) 17:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a policy regarding so-called "test" or "experimental" accounts? Seems like we're attracting more of them. Hermione1980 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Define "test account". I'm not sure what the boundaries are on that. — neuro^(talk) 18:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Accounts that are created for the purpose of conducting some sort of experiment with Wikipedia. The most flagrant example would be Guido den Broeder — i.e., those accounts that "test" policy, the goodwill of Wikipedians, or some other such aspect of the community side of Wikipedia. (Not to say that all of them are unquestionably bad per se, but they certainly have the potential to be extremely disruptive.) Hermione1980 18:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were going to mention Guido. In my opinion at least, such accounts should not be blockable straight out, but ones which clearly only exist to test the limits of Wikipedia and/or the temperament of its contributors should be swiftly blocked - although I doubt that AN is the appropriate place to discuss a guideline itself. — neuro^(talk) 18:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was eyeing this one up myself and wondering who was behind it, but the edits thus far don't seem to point to anyone in particular. Worth watching, for sure; something smells odd. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are to go by the title of the username and the contents of their userpage, they will make another 3 good edits, then comment at this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

well, after appropriately correcting 3 trivialities, the comment is [3] & since JW replied & 2 others commented, its not exactly disruption-- yet. DGG (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check

My unanswered question above: "Anon problems". Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(the response below my question is some kind of note from the user I'm complaining about) Mjpresson (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Catullus 16

I say that including the text of this very short Public domain poem is necessary if we're going to do detailed textual analysis of it, which we do. Others claim that understanding can be, I don't know, pulled out of thin air, and no copy of the poem is necessary. Can someone analyse the policy in this case, and come to a sane decision?

Also, is it just me who can't believe he's managed to fall into an article about a filthy Latin pom, simply because he was linked to it from an off-site article, found the text o f the poem had been deleted, and thus the article was nonsense, restored it and watchlisted it, and now has people claiming grandly that there is no need to see a single line of a poem being extensively discussed? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Back with more in a bit, but try WP:PROFANITY for now. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ok. Not really an admin issue, but here's my read. From an editorial standpoint, some version of the text should stay. It is short, it was probably written to shock originally, and it allows us to talk about the poem clearly. This isn't a poem that just happens to say "fuck", which could be the takeaway from a reader if we eschew posting the whole test and refer to it only through a ~ two paragraph anaylsis. I would suggest either changing the "rough translation" to latin or removing it (as it is superfluous to the table directly beneath it). Other than that I don't see a pressing need to remove it. Protonk (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been coming up with this poem for literally hundreds of years. The fact is there are many ways to translate it, and there's no particular reason to use the word "fuck." I wrote another translation a few years ago for Libel (poetry). Chick Bowen 19:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to use the word "fuck"? DuncanHill (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Notes and technical terms" section at Catullus 16 gives a pretty good understanding of what pedicabo and irrumabo mean. Obviously no translation is entirely precise, and the choice of one over another is a subjective one. Chick Bowen 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I found this article in a state where it was pretty useless - it discussed the text, referencing specific lines but contained only the Latin. I checked, found a translation had been deleted (!), so restored it, and watchlisted it. I just want an article with suffcient information that it doesn't require finding a translation... somewhere else in order to make any sense of the discussion contained therein. An imperfect translation is still infinitely better than no translation at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Problem with this is that "we" shouldn't be doing any translations at all; because that is original research, and the whole unsourced section on "rough translation" appears to breach that policy. Whereas a literatim translation may be a defensible starting point, it's unhelpful because of the issues of interpretation that constitute the major rationale for discussing the topic. To my mind, what would be more valuable in encyclopedic terms are (a) a discussion of the censorship issues (which is already there) and (b) a comparative exercise illustrating how translators have done so in the context of their cultural situations. --Rodhullandemu 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if that were generally true, because of the censorship, there are no public domain translations. In order to discuss the censorship, we need to see what's being censored, and the solution is not to completely censor the poem for our article. Even if translation-as-original-research were a general rule - I'm not convinced it is, as we regularly accept foreign sources in articles - this would be as clear-cut an application of Ignore all Rules ordering us to supply a translation anyway, because it's impossible for anyone who doesn't speak Latin to understand the discussion and why it was censored without a translation. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Whereas that may be so, I find it hard to believe that any translation of such a text cannot be public domain as a derived work; equally, such a translation could not not possibly (without unreasonably stretching the "sweat of the brow" doctrine) be regarded as a breach of copyright. The original text is presumably reliably sourced; all that remains should be its interpretation, and that, as far as we are concerned, is a matter of reliable secondary sources; that those sources may differ is surely up to us to point that out, or reliable tertiary sources (i.e. those that have comparatively and authoritatively analysed the secondary sources) should preferably do that for us. Meanwhile, the purported translation seems to be unsourced; a better starting point would seem that of a creditable Latin scholar, and that should be used as the basis for discussion. --Rodhullandemu 04:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You prudes. As long as the translation is not, word for word, a duplicate of something that is not in the public domain I see no reason why we should not include it. I myself, for reasons I don't want to discuss, went looking for dirty Latin phrases recently and was irritated that the article on Catullus 16 was bowdlerized. Applying WP:NOR to an accurate translation is really a stretch of policy. People translate non-english sources all the time here. Maybe we should eviscerate the "literal translation" of Frere Jacques to be consistent. Skinwalker (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to consider a translation as original research. Doing so would prevent us from quoting at all in articles dependent on non-English-language sources, of which we have a great many and which have always been acceptable. In direct response to Rodhullandemu: a translation is never unsourced; its source is the original. Though translation can be subject to interpretation, that doesn't make it the same thing as interpretation. Giving an acceptable rough translation does not require a scholar. Chick Bowen 04:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if we need to do OR to do an accurate article, I think we simply need to do it. We do what we need to have a clear article. We have two choices--to find some excuse for not calling it OR, or to admit that there is no sharp boundary between what is and is not Original Research. All summarizing, all selection, all choice, all description, is actually to some degree original research--even wikisource is, because the process of choosing what text to transcribe and how to transcribe it is research. Even plagiarism--you have to decide what to copy. DGG (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a technical point, the fact that a work is itself in the public domain does not mean translations of it fall into the public domain. A translation is a new expression and therefore gains a copyright of its own. Looie496 (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the central issue is here -- except that it really doesn't require Administrator attention. But SMH has a point: a plausible argument can be made to include a translation of the poem to help the reader to understand the discussion. Even if a translation somehow falls under original research, ignore all rules gives permission to create & add a translation to this article. BTW, as long as the translation doesn't present an unusual or novel interpretation of the original, how can it be considered original research? -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If the poem is really notable enough, you should be able to find some article that describes parts of the offensive language, without the entire thing (and I've found a few). The first and last lines in particular have been analyzed by a few serious scholars. It might deserve more detail. We had a similar problem at Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara, about a Croatian song. There, the copyright concerns were a problem, but ultimately it still came down to which version or which translation to use (and it still doesn't like there is any real solution). Either way, dispute resolution is that way and not here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if a translation gains its own copyright, aren't the rights released thru the GFDL? Doing a tranlation of a short poem seems no more OR than researching, writing, and citing an article, IMO. I'm not sure what the big deal is. Are we objectng to the obscenity or the translating? Both seem rather frivolous.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is the profanity, I agree that's frivolous. If it's the translating, you are right that it's probably just technical sniping but let's just go to dispute resolution and probably have an RFC to get a better idea of consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Huge backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Resolved

 – Backlog under control now.

Take up your magic wands, fellow admins, and help sorting through that 300+ pages backlog please :-) Regards SoWhy 09:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. WP:FORMER..... leaps to mind. Pedro :  Chat  09:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, there were some sad losses the last month(s), that's true. All the more reasons to recruit some new people to replace them... SoWhy 10:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a lot in December-January, very few before that... עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

December was indeed a record month of resignations, and January is no better. Non-admins can help in this area by removing obvious candidates that don't fit criteria for speedy deletion. Majorly talk 11:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC x2) Yeah, sad thing though. Btw, thanks for the help everyone :-) SoWhy 11:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a very public lack of trust expressed in my admin abilities and usage of the tools expressed a few weeks ago in my handling of the wrestling fiasco. I don't know about everyone else at WP:FORMER, but it's probably best for all of us that I no longer have the tools. There may be good reasons for some of the other admins on that list to no longer have the tools: not having to deal with arguments between editors, not being discussed at Wikipedia Review, lower stress, and so on. Besides, being on this list means I had time and motivation to finish this list. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It was only the wonted backlog, had some time, pitched in. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And we're empty now. But there were an unusually high number of really bad A7 and G1 mistaggings, much higher than normal. Non-admins can help in cleaning the obvious cases like this one up; your help would be greatly appreciated from those of us with the bit! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

And for those of us with the "bit": If you notice a particular user doing several incorrect taggings, you should leave them a note about it (I use {{User:SoWhy/wcsd}} for that). Who knows, maybe they learn from it? Although I admit I also encounter those who seem resistant to learning...but it's worth a try ;-) SoWhy 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Just when I start thinking it's a waste of time, someone does learn from it. But yeah, it can feel like using a teaspoon to empty Lake Michigan. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good tag SoWhy, I may start using that in the future =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

Comment: Because of a request by Dcotzee, I moved/remade it into {{uw-csd}}. Easier to remember too ;-) SoWhy 10:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It helps if admins focus on particular sub-categories rather than the entire category, for example, using a watchlist. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:58.175.1.253

User has vandalized my talk page with racist remarks [4]. User:Versus22 level 1 warned him, and I added a 4im. User then deleted the warnings [5], and added another remark to my userpage [6]. He was warned (level 3), and I added a level 4 warning. I suggest the IP will be blocked. User has already shown racism before. Guy0307 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• You will always get a much more prompt response filing a report at WP:AIV. Protonk (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Done Blocked. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User:JPG-GR

Resolved

 – There is consensus that CSD G6 did not apply to these deletions as neither strictly 'housekeeping' nor uncontroversial, the latter being underlined by the ongoing RfD for KOKC-AM, and they can be restored. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC).

JPG-GR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is completely ignoring my request that he undo some deletions. Is the next step DRV, or is there a less drastic way to settle this? --NE2 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DRV is the appropriate venue. — neuro^(talk) 17:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The least drastic way I can think of is to create a new redirect (or two), though I find it peculiar that an admin would refuse to talk about a deletion that was done on the basis that it was "uncontroversial". If the new redirect(s) were to be deleted, then you might need a more complex settlement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

JPG-GA has deleted a fair number of similar redirects, which seems fairly counterproductive to me. As for KOKC-AM, I've restored it. If an admin is not willing to discuss a speedy deletion (which is supposedly non-controversial), I see no problem with taking the issue to another admin for review. - auburnpilot talk 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering you have contested the deletions (and others have expressed concern), G6 was clearly inappropriate. — neuro^(talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that G6 is clearly inappropriate. Should all of these be restored or are there particular ones only? KnightLago (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That's extensive. (I had looked at the talk page, but not the deletion log!) It seems to be connected to this discussion, where it seems that there was some thought that deleting these redirects would be helpful in "preventing people in the future from using the improper suffix". But they all seem to have been deleted out of process--I don't see an RfD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find an RfD either. This should have been batch RfD'ed if such is the case, not G6'ed. — neuro^(talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the discussion above, it appears that there's consensus to undelete, so it doesn't need to go through DRV. I believe User:NE2/AM has them all - all 364 redirects. --NE2 20:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this counts a 'consensus to undelete', but G6 was clearly inappropriate, so perhaps so. Redirects are cheap, anyway. — neuro^(talk) 22:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe common practice is that obviously mistaken deletions can be undone by anyone. --NE2 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It would take much less effort to simply recreate them than it would for an admin to undelete them. Also, there doesn't appear to be any history worth saving on the few I spot checked (mostly just the article move and nothing more). - auburnpilot talk 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know enough about radio station naming to be sure that all the redirects would be of the form FOO-AM → FOO (AM). --NE2 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• What confuses me is why these deletions were carried out when there were objections to doing so (see Bearcat's comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#For those of you who are crazy and have time to kill...). Redirects are cheap and the justification for deleting them isn't convincing. –xeno (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Having just checked one at random, it's not that simple. Batch undelete would be the best way to go. If such a thing exists (inquiring...) –xeno (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I think I can explain why these redirects are being deleted. According to the FCC there are no XXXX-AM call signs. To make everything correct on Wikipedia, JPG-GR has deleted the few redirects that use the -AM addition. The pages remain at their original space, there is no need for redirects and no need for them to be brought back if it will confuse people. You don't want to know how many articles get made with XXXX-AM as the title and have to be moved each year. That would be another reason for the move...to eliminate the confusion that -AM style call signs make. I have also renom'd KOKC-AM for deletion as it was not necessary to remake the redirect. Hope this explains things. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:09

  The fact that these redirects exist means that some person, at some time, probably tried to reach the article by searching for XXXX-AM. Thus, the redirects have intrinsic merit. Having to move an article once in a while does not supersede this utility, imo. –xeno (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  But they aren't necessary. Why have a redirect that no one looks at? I see no problem with this and I understand what JPG-GR is doing. Your arguement is, "it makes our job easier, so to hell with making things look good or make them less confusing for the reader...even if that means the page is incorrect". - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:16

  Category:Redirects from misspellings. --NE2 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  How do you know that someone isn't trying to get to the KOKC (AM) article by typing KOKC-AM (at least 29 users did in January)? That's the point of redirects, and that's why these redirects have merit. They should not have been deleted as G6 as there was opposition to the deletion. –xeno (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  That's actually a bad example, since it was moved at the end of January. Never mind - it was moved back and forth, which is why there's a spike at the end of the month. --NE2 00:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  Ah. In any case, a single user per month makes the redirect worthwhile. Only 5 for KSST-AM, but that's 5 users who got to the article they were looking for without much trouble. That's what redirects are for. –xeno (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "You don't want to know how many articles get made with XXXX-AM as the title and have to be moved each year" - that's a very good argument for having the redirects, not for deleting them. DuncanHill (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You want as JPG-GR says "junk laying around on the floor", by all means. But first...why not put all these up to deletion review for a "vote" and see what everyone thinks the concensus should be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:38
    • Redirects are cheap. Their purpose is to allow users to access the article, even if they didn't quite type in the title preferred on Wikipedia. It's not like the XXXX-AM redirs are derogatory towards the subject of the article they're redirecting to, so why the push to delete? Hermione1980 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Because people think there is an -AM callsign, there isn't. When you have to fix several pages that people have made (in good faith) with the incorrect callsign, having the "cheap" redirect isn't worth the hassle. In most if not all cases, people will find the page via the MANY disambig pages that exsist all over Wikipedia, so it is not like the XXXX-AM is the end all, be all page for finding what the reader is looking for. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:50
        • Redirects make mis-named duplicate articles less likely. Please read WP:R#Reasons for not deleting. --NE2 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
          • For someone who said above "I don't know enough about radio station naming" you sound like you know alot about radio station naming. You would be VERY surprised at how many unnecessary mis-named duplicate articles there are out there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:01
            • I'm sorry, but your comment doesn't make any sense. Please try to clarify. --NE2 01:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
              • *sigh* You said above that "I don't know enough about radio station naming", but saying "Redirects make mis-named duplicate articles less likely" makes you sound like you do know about radio station naming. So, either know what we are talking about or you don't. If you don't....why are you here? Can you tell this whole conversation is making me a little testy? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:13
                • I'm assuming that the current naming convention of "FOO (AM)" is correct. If it's not, we have a bigger problem. --NE2 01:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
                  • Not in all cases. If there is no disambig page it is just "FOO" (see WAMM). But if there is a disambig page, then it is "FOO (AM)". - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:31
                    • See, that's what I meant. That means it's probably easier to undelete than recreate. --NE2 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(un-indent) But under naming convensions it is not correct. Look, I have said my peace about 3 times, you have me on record being very against the redirects coming back....so I will leave it up to you. If you need further comment, you know where to find me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 02:09

• Naming conventions don't apply to redirects... --NE2 02:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It had been my thought that before possibly restoring these, it would be good to let JPG-GA have a say. S/he has, and it doesn't look restoring these is controversial. Time-consuming, yes. :) But that's what being a janitor is all about. You want them back? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't be that hard: User:AzaToth/twinklebatchundelete.js. –xeno (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, that's a relief, as I've got a full plate at WP:CP this morning and am still plugging away at the articles needing review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Copyright review (shameless plug). Maybe somebody who already has that installed can undelete them if their restoration seems appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Tikiwont indicated in their edit summary they would restore, if not, I can do so a bit later on. –xeno (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
        • All restored now. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Administrator moves over protected titles

Both myself and other admins have moved a page over a protected title without noticing it. In fact, there is no warning or request to confirm and after wards the log of the target does not show explicitly that the page has been unprotected. I think this is incorrect and often unhelpful. Rather the administrator should be advised and asked to confirm unprotection with a relevant reason that may be different that the reason for the move, with a resulting entry in the log. The interface would look similar to the case where the target exists and deletion is required. Am I missing something here or should we simply ask for this to be implemented or enabled?--Tikiwont (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the place to start. If there are no objections, you can wander over here and ask for the new feature. — Jake Wartenberg 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Flagging Jimbo

Jimbo's asking for a basic reading list for where we are on flagged revisions. The request is on his talk page, but I thought some admin help might be useful. I've no time right now, but any encouragement for Jimbo to break the logjam would be good.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor mass-producing articles on minor bilateral national relationships

In the last few days Groubani (talk · contribs) has produced dozens of articles on obscure bilateral relationships between countries. These articles include: Argentina–Singapore relations, Argentina–Nigeria relations, Georgia–Thailand relations (which seem to be basically non-existent), Kenya–Romania relations, Morocco–Romania relations, Israel–Vietnam relations, Chile–Ukraine relations and many, many others - the editor's contribution history speaks for itself. I've checked a sample of these articles, and none of them have any third-party references which demonstrate that the relationship is significant or notable. Some of these articles have been nominated for deletion at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations, but this may require a much larger clean-up operation. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just been looking through the editor's talk page history, and they were asked to stop producing these articles last year by several other editors: [7], [8], [9] and were blocked for continuing to do so: [10]. I think that another block would be justified, and would impose this myself if I hadn't voted in the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That would explain the mess of non-removable images that ImageRemovalBot has been telling me about. --Carnildo (talk) 10:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The AfD seems to be heading towards a snowball delete, which to my mind provides a precedent for mass deleting these articles under CSD A3 (none of them consist of more than a template and a bit of trivia about the countries, so they seem to fall within the scope of this criterion, especially as these articles always seem to be deleted when they're nominated). Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

While I support deletion, I think that A3 is a bit stretching it, and that we should wait a day or 2 before declaring it SNOW. However, I believe that this AfD should apply to all of them, including the votes which were cast before they were listed there, provided all the information in these other pages in comparable. Additionally, it should include all images and templates on these pages, provided that they aren't used anywhere else. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What? we're going to start deleting when we only need another 9,680,322,[...]000,000,000, or thereabouts, to round out these categories? Misarxist 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Hmm, epic fail on math, but I do win on exageration & unintented humor

<unindent> I do think that one of them, Egypt–Israel relations, is notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Argentina–Egypt relations seems to contain worthwhile encyclopaedic information too (date of establishing official relations, presence of embassies). What's going on here? A block also seems way out of line - the user's sole fault seems to be a poor grasp of English and a bad understanding of the need to cite sources - but it's all verifiable. Something is seriously wrong with the way this user's being treated. WilyD 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a willingness to communicate is necessary for any user here, especially those making large-scale uploads. Groubani doesn't appear to have reacted to any attempts to communicate with him. I'm not sure anything other than a block can force him to communicate (and I'm not sure that a block can, either). Kusma (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an annoying and disruptive anonymous editor from Simple Wikipedia. It's possible for IPs to create pages there, and this person has done, creating biased, badly formatted non-notable articles. We tend to block the IP on sight there... likewise, they haven't bothered to respond to many, many messages left for them. Majorly talk 14:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This user is active on es, and is probably a native Spanish speaker. It's quite possible that if people investigated the situation, rather than simply looking for excuses to block the editor, they'd discover this. The articles being created are well formatted, unbiased and notable, they're merely spelt poorly and not explicitly referenced. WilyD 14:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

...Eh. I want to not be a luddite about this, but we are looking at something on the order of $2^{n}$ articles, without many references or connection to the importance of those bilateral links. Protonk (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2to the Nth power? More like (N * (N-1)) / 2. 200 Countries would give some 20,000 articles. Quite a lot, and many of them about subjects with very little info about them from thrid-party sources, but we should not exaggerate the number. Fram (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "on the order of" should have been "rises as" and lined to Big O notation. Protonk (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Just ${\binom {n}{2}}=n(n-1)/2$, which is $O(n^{2})$, but that's still quite a lot. Most countries have diplomatic relations with most other countries. Usually, it shouldn't be too hard to find some references (at least in the local languages) but while there's nothing interesting to say about a diplomatic relation, a standalone stub is perhaps not the best way to present this data. It would be nice if we could get Groubani to make hundreds of lists (or whatever is most appropriate) instead of thousands of articles. But that would require communication... Kusma (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are ~40K bilateral pairings, which're at the stub level. But the vast majority of these are going to be notable per WP:N, if one bothers to look for sources. I might buy that the bilateral relation between Vanatu and Saint Kitts and Nevis doesn't exist and isn't notable, but between any pair of countries that bother to have embassies and whatnot with each other there'll be plenty of sources if one bothers to look. I picked one such article at random this morning, between two non anglophone countries (which makes sourcing much more difficult for a monoglot such as myself) and yet still easily established notability without breaking a sweat. None of these articles are contraversial or problematic - no one is seriously disputing anything, it's just deletion for it's own sake. WilyD 15:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

List are probably not viable because of the dual association - e. g. Argentina-Egypt relations would need to be on both Foreign relations of Egypt and Foreign relations of Argentina. This seems to be a very straightforward case of WP:NOT#PAPER - it's unclear why, though. WilyD 15:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny, the problem I see here is creation for its own sake. Kusma (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, some people are under the impression we're here to create an encyclopaedia, and creating that encyclopaedia and its articles for its own sake is enough. WilyD 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We are here to create an encyclopedia. For this reason, we do not create independent articles on every tiny piece of knowledge, but try to present the knowledge in the most appropriate way. The user here added a little extra knowledge (dates that some countries resumed diplomatic relations) in a rather inefficient way that is hard to navigate and requires large templates containing all countries if completed. This leads to easy creation of many articles, but not to a creation of lots of encyclopedia. Kusma (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement would be a lot easier to justify if you weren't arguing that the most appropriate way was not at all. Because Wikipedia is a work in progress, we have a lot of stubs. If stub was a deletion criterion, we'd rarely get any better articles, because they'd be deleted before much was written. The current format is the best format I can think of, and the best format going forward (since these're all expandable to much larger articles), and no one has even suggested a plausible alternative. WilyD 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable to create one of these stubs. Creating a few hundred is not acceptable at all. WP:POINT used to explain that at some point in the past (don't remember when). Kusma (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with creating large numbers of stubs. It is, historically, how we've done everything. This isn't nearly rambot territory. Creating large numbers of unproblematic, notable articles isn't a problem, it's part of the solution to our incomplete encyclopaedia. WilyD 17:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is rambot territory, I would guess that there is a general consensus today that Rambot was a good thing. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) Echoes of User:rambot? I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, I prefer that articles be created by humans and with sources. On the other hand, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. We may be able to just chillax about the whole thing and wait and see. Protonk (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Also problems with re-creations of deleted articles. But re communication if Groubani is on es.wiki they should have some idea of what's expected of them, & obviously can understand at least some english to be able to put these stubs together. Misarxist 16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the AfD'd articles. dougweller (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a person at the reins here, there's just some communication problem. WilyD 16:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

An editor who doesn't enter into conversation and ignores other editors' requests and blocks isn't much different from an unmonitored bot. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since we don't allow anon article creation any more create such stubs is somewhat useful.Geni 01:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What I find most annoying about these is not the existence of the stubs themselves, but the fact that some people have gone through and moved the whole lot, including well-established articles with actual content, to an utterly ungrammatical naming scheme, calling them all according to the bizarre pattern France–Germany relations (as opposed to the natural English French-German relations or the more fancy Franco-German relations, the way most of the real articles were named when they were originally created.) No doubt these same people will now cite the existence of the thousands of stubs as an argument allegedly necessitating the imposition of this kind of pseudo-uniformity of article names. I've moved a few back to their natural titles that were moved without consensus (some of the multiple times). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

whatever we use we are going to need a boatload of redirects. Franco-Germanic relations ? The UK is probably the worst offender although once you realise that Anglo-Abyssinian relations (in relation to the 1868 Expedition to Abyssinia amoung other things) is a potentialy legit redirect name trying for the most natural sounding is probably a lost cause.Geni 17:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there an established naming scheme? I threw up a few links to a few I felt were notable -- if you know something about Ethiopian history then you would agree that relations between Ethiopia & such countries as Japan, Sweden & Belgium are notable -- to suggest some useful topics. But beyond some vague examples, I had to guess what the article titles should be. -- llywrch (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The magic of redirects.... my guess is that nearly all of these are notable, so we might as well assume notability. But just because something can pass notability does not mean we should be in a rush to create an article. It can often do more harm than good to create a sub-stub. This reminds me of the debate over the bot creation of all those geo stubs. At a minimum people should agree on format, templates, naming, and some other basic stuff before someone goes out and does it, because it takes a lot more time to bring an article into shape than it does to create it, particularly if the creation was incomplete or badly formatted. Wikidemon (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well drifting back on topic, I feel that the conflict in this case is the same as in the geo stubs which Wikidemon mentions. In effect, someone (or a group of someones) is saying, "Stop making all of these stubs! Not only do we have too many stubs as it is, no one will ever turn them into real articles!" Of course, this argument brings an expected push-back because: (1) no one agrees exactly how many stubs is "too many"; (2) if you think there are too many stubs, then work on some & make them more complete articles; (3) blanket nominations are rarely a good idea; & (4) no one person can definitively identify a stub that will never grow into an article. I am always surprised when I have assumed that a given stub will never be improved on due to lack of easily-obtained information, then months (or a couple of years) later stumble across the exact source that will allow me to do exactly that. And even if an honest attempt to find material fails, one can always merge the information into another article & turn the original one into a redirect. -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions on Wheel warring and Admin hopping

Hi. As some of you know, I'm quite a newbie admin, so I miss some/many experiences in the community. I was pondering a series of questions regarding situations when two or more admins disagree and let this show through actions, so I'd like any input/links to pages about them:

• Does wheel-warring apply only when admins use the tools (e.g. deleting, protecting) or always when they make a administrative decision (e.g. declining a speedy, declining a protection) and another admin reverses this use of the tools / decision (e.g. restores, unprotects, deletes despite the decline)?
• Is there any written policy / guideline against admin-hopping / forum-shopping?

Thanks in advance for any input. Regards SoWhy 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping is covered under the canvassing guideline: WP:FORUMSHOP –xeno (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that. I guess this also applies to re-tagging an article for speedy deletion after it was declined? SoWhy 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, you should not re-add the same speedy tag once it's been removed (by an administrator or otherwise, exception being if it's the author that removed it). –xeno (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Or if the article turns into an attack page (after being reviewed) OR is discovered to be a copyvio OR... there are exceptions, but retagging it over and over again with the hope of getting a favorable outcome is not appropriate---nor is it appropriate for one admin to knowinly delete an article another has untagged. (Restoring a speedily deleted article is different, it indicates that the article might not have met the criteria or that the author expressed a desire to keep working on it.)---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Those hypotheticals should be covered by my allusion to "the same speedy tag" –xeno (talk) 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if another admin had declined a speedy (to use one of your examples) then I'd not override that without a good chat first. (Usually.) Deciding not to use the buttons is an adminstrative decision. - brenneman

Also the other way 'round: if another admin had speedied an article, I would not restore without talking to him...but when I think about it, sometimes, regarding protection, I unprotect without contacting the other admin (unless he left a message with the protection). Lectonar (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Note also that a number of admins have "any admin may undo any of my actions" or similar on their user pages. However, courtesy alone dictates that undoing (or as Brenneman rightly points out doing when another admin has decided not to do) an action should at the very least result in a talk page note even in this event. Pedro :  Chat  14:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DELETE says that declining a speedy forces the issue to go to XfD for most cases, even if the person declining it isn't an admin. Just FYI. Protonk (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The answer to any of these questions will almost always boil down to 'it depends'. If another admin has protected an article for a week, but you see that the edit warring parties have come to an agreement on the talk page after six days, you could probably unprotect without any trouble. If another admin protects a page for a week and you come along and unprotect fifteen minutes later, you're probably on very thin ice.

First rule of thumb — if the situation were reversed and another admin whom you'd never heard of was reversing one of your calls, how would you feel? Depending on how easygoing you are, this test may not work well at telling you what you should do, but it certainly will work for telling you what you absolutely shouldn't do.

Remember that there is very little on Wikipedia that needs to be done urgently. Even if you feel justified that you could overturn another admin's decision (based on a reading of policy, or your understanding of the situation, or what have you) it's almost always better to ask first instead of explaining afterward. The original admin may be aware of information that you haven't seen. He may have made an error and like to be able to learn from his mistake.

If you do feel that a situation needs to be resolved quickly, try proposing your planned action on AN/I first. Get a quick read of the community's opinion before you jump in. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		In appreciation of all you outstanding Administrators. Keep up the great work. Waterjuice (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why thankyou :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ADM a Single-purpose account; Hate Speech.

Please take note of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AADM&diff=268189636&oldid=268072415. Note recent ANI of this user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#User:ADM_a_Single-purpose_account.3F. --Elvey (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Odd behaviour, failure to acknowledge legitimate concerns, and weird choices of subject and content. I have blocked the user for now, let's see what they have to say for themselves. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed policy addition at WP:ADMIN

I've proposed that the following sentence by added to the WP:ADMIN policy:

Any admin who uses block or other log messages containing defamatory, insulting, profane, or other such impolite language may be summarily desysopped.

Someone suggested in the ensuing discussion that this be advertised elsewhere to generate more input. The discussion is here. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Page history

Can someone fix the page history of Phil Hansen (American football), someone copied and pasted it from Philip Hansen and Albert Lewis and Albert Lewis (American football).--Yankees10 06:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Malfunctioning adminbot

AntiAbuseBot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just indefinitely blocked my old account IsleofPlan (talk · contribs) [11] for a minor formatting error [12]. Hope this isn't block evasion in posting here. IsleofPlan2 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Log back in to your now blocked account and request a unblock there on your talk page using {{unblock|your reason here}}. Tiptoety ^talk 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

He can't [13]. No warning, no block notice either. DuncanHill (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot operator has been made aware of this - it seems this was a one-time thing that has now been resolved. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what the heck? Am I the only one who thinks that a bot blocking users with "account creation blocked, e-mail blocked, cannot edit own talk page" is highly inappropriate? --Conti|✉ 12:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Conti. Such blocks shouldn't be made by a bot which, as seen here, can malfunction. SoWhy 12:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So then why didn't you raise your concerns on the brfa? It was spammed on an and links were placed in the block summaries. I really hate the way the community just ignores bots until something goes wrong. I'm going to bed now but I'll be happy to talk about it in the morning --Chris 12:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have, if I would've noticed the brfa in time. Maybe there needs to be a list of current admin brfa's somewhere that we could watchlist? That'd hopefully solve that problem, at least. --Conti|✉ 13:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adminbots --Chris 23:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't made explicit on the BRFA that it would use these settings (sure you could've sussed it out by looking at the sample blocks, but...) –xeno (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the onus is on the bot owner to ensure that the bot is operating smoothly. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The bot blocks like this because it was designed to primarily deal with Grawp who usually abuses talk page editing privileges and e-mail. (Or at least that's my limited understanding.) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why the bot blocks with these options on, and that's of course perfectly fine for Grawp socks. The problem is that no bot is perfect, as we can see here, and a mistake means that an innocent user is blocked and unable to do anything at all about the block. There absolutely needs to be some human oversight here. --Conti|✉ 21:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (unindent) I for one agree with SoWhy and Conti very strongly. A bot should never be allowed to use the “cannot edit own talk page” block option — Chris, please change that as soon as possible. — Aitias // discussion 21:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, look what happens when grawp socks are blocked without talkpage editing disabled:

• User talk:The Smell of Semen
• User talk:Twicestory
• User talk:The password is poop
• User talk:It's Solo! And he's shooting first! That's not fair!
• User talk:Tubebuilt

The same thing also happens when account creation isn't blocked, and when email isn't blocked. --Chris 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand why a bot might block aggressively under certain circumstances, but I have trouble understanding why one would respond to IsleofPlan's edit with a block at all. Dragons flight (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that block should have never happened. It was a mistake on my behalf that has now been fixed. --Chris 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

block email, that's fine. What is the harm in not blocking talk pages? The person goes crazy on the talk page until what? until a human notices and locks the talk page? There isn't any great damage the project in that case.--Crossmr (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

clearly you've never seen a grawp unblock request then. He uses tables with coloured cells to somehow recreate a massive version of the goatse image, among other things, its several 100,000kb and even covers the tabs at the top, so it takes ages to load and its in the unblock cat so its a common occurrence if you're active there--Jac16888^Talk 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

is there no way to delete the page without actually loading it? Even still, if we're accidentally hamstringing legit users, he's already won.--Crossmr (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably, except that the only way to know if its been grawped is to see the page itself, or the history, there is no way to stop these as the minute, at least not until the abuse filter comes online, I seem to remember that this bot is only meant to be a stopgap till then, the filter should pretty much stop every single form of abuse they can come up with.--Jac16888^Talk 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure there is. If he's making pages that large just return the history of the talk page. You'll see the page size. If the bot locks down someone for everything but talk page and an unblock post is requested just return the page history. If its several times larger than any reasonable unblock request delete and salt the earth.--Crossmr (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about this more and even if we can't delete a page without viewing it, we can rollback all the edits of a user without viewing each edit. So all you need to do is have the bot watch the page for the unblock request category. At that point have it return the page history and retrieve the page size. If it is above a threshold, rollback the users edit's and delete/lock the page. If its not, do nothing and let a human handle it.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be a nice function. I think it doesn't come up nearly as often as it used to, in large part because we're now blocking pagemovers with these flags, but it's worth bearing in mind, especially if those flags change. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you use popups then when you put your cursor over the link it won't load the full page but will tell you the size of the page and give you a link to delete it without loading it. Hut 8.5 10:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do agree this error was pretty bad -- fortunately, it's the only one of its kind I have yet seen, and it was reversed pretty quickly once it was brought up for admin attention. I do feel a need to say, though: if AntiAbuseBot can't block pagemove socks with the flags it currently uses, there is just about no point having it block at all, as every block it makes will need to be tweaked by hand. Given the low error rate and great amount of good this bot has done, I'd rather we didn't shoot ourselves in the foot like that without a pressing reason. Have we had any other unfortunate incidents like this one? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

We could otherwise leave the bot as it is, and ask for an admin review of the blocks (for example if the bot adds {{unblock|Please review this automatic block}} to the user's talk page? That way we are 100% sure all blocks are legitimate, while preventing disruption. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Any false positives with this setup are very bad. The extra work would be a minor hassle -- few accounts a day, maybe? -- but if the extra human review helps people feel more comfortable I wouldn't mind pitching in. Anyone else have an opinion on this one? – Luna Santin (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. In fact, it should be standard for admin-bot-that-block. It could put it in a seperate category, i.e. "bot generated unblock review requests" or something. –xeno (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Enabled. Change User:AntiAbuseBot/unblock.js to whatever you want the bot to post on the talkpage. If you want it to stop just blank that page and the bot won't post anything on blocked users talkpages. --Chris 09:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

A better template for the bot to use

I have a sample template at User:Od Mishehu/unblock-bot, based on the current unblock templates. I would like comments about it. I have not yet written a version for {{unblock-bot reviewed}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought: Rather than {{unblock-bot reviewed}}, you could simply use {{blocked_user}} as there's really no reason to tell the user troll why he's been blocked. —Travis^talk 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Anything else? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Should article moves be prohibited during AfD?

I have twice recently encountered a situation where during an AfD the article was moved to a new title (for good-faith reasons like capitalisation) so that when the debate ended "delete" only the redirect left by the move was deleted, and the article under its new title lingered on, still displaying the AfD template. I suggest that the AfD template should be expanded to read "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked or moved to a new title... " JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this idea, but I believe that this isn't the place for such a discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did think of Template_talk:Afd but it's not very active - last post 4 months ago. JohnCD (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I support this idea. Article improvement should always go on (except for incidents that necessitate article protection). Renaming the article can be an improvement, for the article's sake, and for the encyclopedia's sake. Sometimes an article survives because of improvements made during the AfD. If the community decides such an article should be deleted, that deletion should apply to the content that was moved, not just the original name of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This situation (where renaming the page could make the difference) could be dealt with by voting "rename" in stead of "keep". Other improvements can't reasonably be summarized in the AfD discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm not sure I support either, for the same reasons as Kingturtle. Isn't this really just a problem when using the closing script? If we just get in the habit of bouncing over to the article after a close, or double-checking for a move prior to closing its no big deal right? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion, but will note:

• I have been involved in some AfDs where this has happened, and it can cause confusion among participants, not just closing admins.
• It has often been the case that participants have agreed on a more appropriate article name, should the article be kept. I've not seen a case where the change had to be made during the deletion process, nor can I think of circumstances that would be so pressing.

Anyway, that's it for me. IMHO this isn't a dreadfully inappropriate place for this discussion, but I think it would perhaps be better if moved to Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy (which is pretty active), with an "advert" left here and at the template talk. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see many worries with re-naming articles in AfD. As with lots of stuff here, reading skills and heed may be called for. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• • (ec)I've done a few moves during AfD, e.g. for caps but tried to leave a note at the AfD. It can be both beneficial and confusing but I would be against such a rule. Nevertheless, I remember that there was a word of caution regarding moves but cna't find it now. I also think that the redirect only indicates that they might not have looked at what they delete. Otherwise they would simply be redirected two hat they're supposed to delete. In that sense the outcome of the discussion applies to an article and not to particular spelling.

    Actually I think an obviously wrong title should be corrected before AfD. If something is worth a five day community discussion, it surely is worth a correct title. Moreover, in case of articles that might be reposted having the discussion and deletion at a wrong title makes the identification of reposts more difficult. Most of this should be followed-up at WT:AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I think we're all probably agreed that it'd be best if something obvious were fixed first! --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure we do!--Tikiwont (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
        • You might want to learn Geogre's Law. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

If you move an article during AfD, you should also update the links and note that on the AfD itself. But an admin who closes an AFD as "delete" and only deletes the redirect isn't doing his job properly (you should always check the page history before deleting). Article improvement (like fixing the title, something that should be encouraged) should not be prohibited to make life easier for lazy admins. Kusma (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to prohibit moves during AfD. I have seen confusion caused by moved, but I have also seen articles kept because of moves. As for correcting them prior to the AfD, we often find that a subject matter expert comes by during AfD and suggests a better title. Agree generally w/ Gwen above. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Moves used to be, some years ago, discouraged during AFD discussion. (It was not an absolute prohibition. It simply required that the person performing the move know what xe was doing and fix the links that such a move broke — which was not the case for many novice editors coming to AFD. I and others who knew what we were doing renamed articles during discussions in those days. We simply made all of the requisite manual fixes to not break the process when we did so, as well.) We have long since fixed the technical problem with the AFD notice that required that prohibition, and removed the prohibition both from the notice and from the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. If moves cause problems with some script that some closing administrators are using, then the problem is a technical problem with that script, and it's the script that requires fixing, not anything else.

Not only are editing and renaming the article whilst the discussion is ongoing, to fix problems with the article, allowed, they are encouraged. AFD is not an election. It doesn't force an article to be frozen whilst it is discussed. If any editor can improve an article that is listed at AFD, they are welcome and encouraged to do so. Making the encyclopaedia better remains the goal. The only concerns during an AFD discussion are merger (which has GFDL implications) and blanking (of which redirection is effectively a subset), both of which obscure the notice linking to the on-going discussion. Blanking is thus the one issue addressed on Template:afd1, for that very reason. Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

there have been times where the article title was so inappropriate as to prejudice the discussion, and a better title made an immedaite difference. Those of us who use scripts etc. need to check what they do. DGG (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a case like this was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific), where I moved the article to resolve the major reason for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with doing almost anything that stands a realistic chance of fixing the problem, during any deletion debate. It might help if a clueful admin were to suspend the debate until the changes are done and then restart it, in some cases, but often it's a sign of Heyman standard improvement. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I, for one, achieved that with Off-line (AfD discussion), which I renamed to on-line and off-line during the AFD discussion, and I expect to achieve it with Heterography (AfD discussion) too. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

One does, however, run into cases in which article moves are made (usually, but not always, by the articles' creators) in an attempt to obfuscate the AfD process. A recent example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michele Merkin ASCII art, where the article was moved twice by its creator during the AfD discussion. This AfD was closed as "delete" more than two hours ago, and the actual "article" at its final destination, along with the intermediate redirect, were not deleted—only the redirect at the original title was. (As soon as I finish typing this, I'll tag them for speedy deletion.) Another example I was involved with, some time ago, was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonnetology, and I've seen other similar cases as well. Their existence perhaps doesn't warrant a prohibition on article moves during AfDs, but I think such moves should be discouraged in most instances. No one is going to take seriously a recommendation that an article be deleted simply because its title contains an error in capitalization, and most such moves—along with other, more substantial ones—can wait for AfD closure. Deor (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. That doesn't obfuscate the AFD discussion at all. The discussion hyperlinked to the article, with the double redirect already fixed by a 'bot. It was quite clear both during and at the close of the discussion what article was under discussion. Had the closing administrator followed that hyperlink xe would have been taken directly to the correct thing to delete.

  The problem there is that the closing administrator did not follow the hyperlink from the discussion to the article. The problem there is almost certainly the shortcut "delete" link in the discussion, which the closing administrator almost certainly used in place of just going directly to the article. That's a problem with Template:afd2 that should be fixed, just like the problem several years ago was a problem with Template:afd1 that can be, and was, fixed. It's not a reason to prohibit or discourage moves. It's a reason to fix a problem with the template. There is no good reason to defer moves until AFD closure, and there's no good reason to reinstate the non-trivial procedural burden on editors and AFD discussions that we used to have years ago. If a template or a script is causing administrators to delete the wrong things, then it's the template or the script that needs fixing. The editor community at large should not be arbitrarily restrained in fixing articles during AFD discussions, and have to "vote" for renames, because some purported labour-saving device for closing administrators doesn't work correctly.

  Your second example isn't even an example of this. The closing administrator actually deleted the renamed article, Sonnet studies, first, and then deleted the redirect at the original title Sonnetology. Your second example provides no grounds for your argument at all. In fact, it undermines it. The article was renamed during discussion; nobody was confused by this; and the closing administrator deleted both the article and the redirect left behind by the renaming, in an order that suggests that xe wasn't at all confused as to where the article under discussion actually was, either. You are addressing a non-problem. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood the main point I was making, which was about moves intended to confuse or otherwise short-circuit deletion discussions. That these sometimes have the effect that closers don't delete everything that needs deleting is a side issue for me (though it was perhaps the main point made by the initiator of this thread). Deor (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Another User:Everyme block evasion with 78.34.148.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Grsz¹¹_Review 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Not done anything disruptive; I don't see any reason to block the IP. – iridescent 00:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually I'd say block, but unless more contributions come from the IP I'd say leave it to avoid any collateral damage. — neuro^(talk) 00:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say edit summaries like this is pretty unconstructive. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've never respected the block anyway. And in all modesty, I think I've done some good -albeit minor- stuff, like giving the intial suggestion to form WP:OBAMA and such. 78.34.148.222 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, diff given by A Nobody above hidden by deletion: completely unacceptable. Fram (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I've never done rangeblocks and don't plan on starting now, but perhaps a rangeblock of 78.34.148.XXX is useful here? Fram (talk) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He has used at least all of the following since his most recent main account was blocked in December 2008:

• 78.34.128.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.128.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.129.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.133.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.134.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.134.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.135.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.144.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.145.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.148.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.148.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.148.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.149.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.151.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.151.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 78.34.168.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended

In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.

The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:

• Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
• Opposing: None
• Abstaining: None
• Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana

It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.

For the Committee, Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Cross posted by Tznkai (talk)on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by a fullurl for those on the normal server :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Open unblock request

Resolved

 – Request declined by VirtualSteve.  Sandstein  19:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Could another administrator take a look at User talk:Males? It seems like a relatively straightforward block and unblock request, but I don't know enough about all of the related messes to make a decision. I'm not bringing this here to "review" the conduct of the blocking admin, I'm totally neutral on that. Just trying to get an answer on the unblock request before the block duration elapses. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uses of the AbuseFilter

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Uses of the AbuseFilter regarding possible uses of the AbuseFilter in the future and whether we want to consider possible implications of them (particularly as a mechanism to control specific editors). Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unitary executive theory

Could somebody look at this page and clarify whether tagging it for OR and claiming it is unreferenced is in good faith when there are scores of refs (nearly each sentence) to the article? That is: this version[14] since a slow edit war, removing legal experts as source, is brewing.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Am I misreading policy if I think this edit I corrected[15] seriously skirts policy prohibiting removal of sourced content?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute over a LaRouchian fringe theory being handled in detail on the talk page of the article and at WP:RSN. Per WP:MULTI, I won't respond here, too. THF (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No LaRouche involved, so this is a misleading statement, this editor says Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, Scott Horton (lawyer) all fail WP:RS. My question is: do they? But the real question here is: is tagging a sourced article as OR violating policy?''Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nescio not only misrepresents his sources, but he misrepresents my arguments, which are spelled out in detail on the talk page and at RSN. He's being disruptive by arguing this in multiple places. THF (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

user:198.200.181.209

User:198.200.181.209 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was warned for vandalizing our articles on Newt Gingrich and Marilyn Monroe - the proverbial odd couple if there ever was - last april ([16]). They were then warned and blocked for vandalizing other articles last month ([17]). They proceded to vandalize the only page left that they could edit, viz. their own talk page, leading to it being semi-protected for inappropriate use by a blocked user (see [18]). Yesterday, they returned to vandalizing Newt Gingrich and Marilyn Monroe ([19]; [20]), whereafter they were blocked for one month ([21]; [22]); they again vandalized their talk page, whereafter their block was expanded to prevent editing of their talk page ([23]). Given that this appears to be an unrepentant vandal who has taken us through the same spin cycle twice in as many months, should we consider more permanent sanctions?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• WHOIS shows this to be a {{SharedIPEdu}}; which is now blocked for a month. Longer blocks should be permissible if this vandalism continues. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Being WP:BOLD here and compressing non-relevant post
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Be aware of this court case and how it applies to WP Resolved  – I'll remember to be nice to people, but no admin intervention needed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/05/texas.exoneration/index.html This is a case of a man wrongly convicted of rape. He was offered parole if he would admit to guilt. He refused to do so. In Wikipedia, we must not try to coerce people the same way. Two years ago, I was indefinitely blocked by Ryulong falsely accused of being a sock. Two administrators (according to one of them) knew I was not a sock and unblocked me several months later. I was not forced to make a false confession. In WP, we sometimes want confessions before unblock. We should try to work in the spirit of cooperation with everyone and not wield a stick to get a confession so that we feel good. I am appalled by the nastiness that some Wikipedians display. There are some nice Wikipedians but we are outnumbered. Let's work to get the encyclopedia better and work with each other. For those that missed Wikicup, you can still play as a pretend competitor. Chergles (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Ok we'll keep that in mind. Btw I thought we already had a discussion about this? User_talk:Patton123#see_my_comment--Pattont/c 21:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) The issue is not Ryulong but forced confessions. I have seen a few cases of that. Just be nice to each other and follow the golden rule. Chergles (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Sure friend ;-)--Pattont/c 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Damn. I thought this was going to be the Flagged Revisions smoking gun. Maybe next week. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

CU/OS election has started!

Your participation is needed! The historic first-ever CheckUser and OverSight election run by the Arbitration Committee has just started. It's taking place here. Editors are needed urgently to scrutinise the candidates so that those appointed are the best possible people for the job. Your participation here is important to make the election a success. Thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Santi6666

Santi6666 have several times added pictures on Klaas-Jan Huntelaar in Real Madrid ‎to Wikipedia, claiming them as his own creations, however some of them appear on other internet sites, including Fifa. com [24] and on Realmadrid.com [25], some pictures dont appear on this pages but appears to be out of the same picture serie. Santi6666 have been told that he is posting unfree images as hes own, but keeps on creating new ones once the earlier have been deleted. Wonder if their is a way for Wikipedia admin to prevent this? --> Halmstad, Charla to moi 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: unsure if this is the right place to post this, but did not find anything on list above that redirected me to another page.

(This seems to need archiving, so... Fram (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Is this ok?

Hi, I hope I'm in the right place, I have a sort of question so I didn't think ANI was appropriate. Basically I'm not happy with a comment one user made to another here, but I read CIVIL NPA & BLOCK and couldn't find anything specifically "outlawing" it. Is what Ryūlóng said ok?

Also I should just add that I don't know either of these 2 users and just stumbled upon the AFD in the sorting section, so I may not be away of any relevant history. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering User:Mythdon's last AFD was speedy deleted by Ryulong that does seem a little strange. M♠ssing Ace 12:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It does seem odd given the circumstances pointed out by User:Missing Ace above. Obviously, threatening to block someone or to have someone else block them just because you disagree with them in an AFD discussion is pretty out of line, so no, it's not okay. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

As a courtesy, I have advised both Ryulong and Mythdon of this thread. Pedro :  Chat  13:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I read Ryoulong as warning the user against (further) disruption. Which would be acceptable if A)Phrased politely and B)Previous disruption had occured. Looking back, though, I'm not seeing landslide of similar nominations by this user. These two do have a history, per Mythdon's talk, but in the end R isn't saying that he will block him, just that he'll seek to have him blocked. So, all in all probably file under "irked but harmless." - brenneman 14:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I also see from there that this is not the first time Ryulong has threatened to try and get others blocked, he also threatened another user here.

What can I, a lone humble editor, do to get this sort of threat specifically barred, in either CIVIL, NPA or BLOCK? Do you have to request the policy change at ARBCOM? Or is it just as simple as requesting it on the relevant policy's talk page. I'd hate to think anyone takes these sorts of threats seriously and stops making legitimate edits. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. I think there is no chance of getting this kind of "threat" barred in general, because it's so hard to define, and so hard to distinguish from a warning. I am very much puzzled by Ryūlóng's reasoning – I have never heard of this character, not even of this Power Ranger (whatever that is) universe that it seems to come from. On the other hand, Mythdon has a userbox identifying themselves as a Power Ranger fan. But generally speaking, if an admin considers asking for me to be blocked if I do something, I prefer to know about it before it happens. One of the advantages is that I can try to convince the admin it would be a mistake before I have something on my block log. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, is Ryulong an admin or not? I was under the assumption he was an ordinary user who had made a non-admin closure of the earlier mentioned AFD. I have been speaking as though he was not an admin, I have no problem with admins threatening to block users and wouldn't want that to change. Although in regards to my first post (if Ryulong is an admin) I think he may have over-stepped the mark. Ryan4314 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I can now see that Ryulong is an admin, I retract all the stuff I said about policy changes. Although this does now bring up the issue that he threatened to block an editor over a content dispute. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No matter the issue here, I think the above diffs and links paint a pretty disturbing picture of an admin threatening to block users over content disputes where he himself is involved in. I'd really like his statement about that but if it is true, we cannot tolerate such behavior. I do hope it's all a big misunderstanding though... SoWhy 15:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read that comment and I'm really not comfortable with Ryulong being an administator. I just don't trust him. How was that AfD disruptive? He's the only one who said keep, the rest said delete and redirect to power ranges, so it's obviously not a disruptive nom. I would like to see him apologise to Mythodon.--Patton^t/c 17:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

First off to answer the original question: No, this is not okay. Administrators should not be threatening blocks to users whom they are having a disagreement with. Second, unfortunately this type of questionable behavior has been going on for a little while now with multiple unsuccessful attempts to get Ryulong to stop, and I am afraid it never will. Not more than a few months ago, I left Ryulong a note about improper user of rollback, to which clearly had no effect 'cause when approached about a similar misuse, he replies with "bugger off", how becoming of a administrator. As for the blocking issues, here is another example of a block (that was later reduced) placed on a editor by Ryulong whom he was involved in a dispute with, and even after he was confronted about it he never admitted he was wrong. Finaly, I am still scratching my head as to why a IP deserves a one month block with talk page editing disabled for not signing their talk page posts, I am really hoping Ryulong can shed some light on that for us. Tiptoety ^talk 18:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong is blocking editors for not signing their posts? Okay, instead of blocking the editor, he could have used the {{unsigned}} template to sign his posts for him. That's what I did on User talk:SSRanger and Ryulong told me that he doesn't have to sign his posts and here is the edit war concerning that [26] [27] [28] [29]. Here is that discussion for my talk page. And about the "bugger off" response, he could have discussed the rollbacks or even just left the warning there. If I found that my rollback was unjust, I would undo it. Why can't Ryulong use rollback properly? I'd really like to know. The rollback policy directly says use to revert vandalism and abuse of it allows any admin to revoke it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, to prevent bias, here is the discussion concerning the AfD. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP address -- Samir 05:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out this concerning the IP address not signing posts. If you take a look at his talk page, my final warning was plenty of warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

While I personally prefer all talk page posts to be signed and timestamped and do make use of the {{unsigned}} template when I find unsigned posts, I do not think that not signing is disruptive in a blockable sense. DuncanHill (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Just a quick summary for the benefit of any newcomers to this thread: Ryulong has been threatening users he disagrees with with blocks [30] [31], rollbacking good faith edits [32] [33] [34] [35], and telling those who complained about his rollbacks to "bugger off" [36]. He even blocked an ip editor and protected his talk page for forgetting to sign posts [37].--Patton^t/c 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong's reply to the "summary" diffs.

About this: Mythdon has generally been annoying towards myself and several other users since he started editing. In the past couple of months, he has been putting various articles up for AFD in the subject area which have no pressing need to be deleted in any way. I've advised Mythdon to change his editing habits in sending items to AFD on the talk page of the WikiProject I started up to deal with articles in the Power Rangers, etc. subject area. This thread is seen here where I elaborate upon my comments to Mythdon at the AFD. About this: Fractyl has been a user I've had issues with that I've brought up on this board (or ANI) in the past. Generally, he adds unverified information to articles, and after doing so I warned him that if he continued to add unverified information to articles he would get blocked. This is, as far as I know, normal practice. In both of these cases, I did not say I was going to block the user in question, as it was stated above. I simply said that I would seek a block, which in my case would be seeking another administrator to look into the situation and trust in their judgement.

I know I have a history in dealing with Mythdon and Fractyl, and my language towards them has gotten less kind as my patience with the two of them has dropped. I once asked for another administrator to look into an issue that Mythdon became a part of, and he soon lost his patience with the editor as well. I am trying to get Fractyl to abide to policy more and more and Mythdon to take less of a strict reading of various policies, as he seems to be taking guidelines as the final solution to various things that could be solved (in my opinion) outside of AFD.

Now onto other things brought up: Mythdon was repeatedly adding fact tags to things which, not being a BLP, do not need to be verified to where every sentence/paragraph needs a citation. This is a long term problem on this page/style issues with that template. Removing trivia. Also done here.

Now about that IP address, This user did not forget to sign his comments. He purposefully added "Intentionally unsigned" at the end of them, wherever he went. This is a disruptive practice, and I warned him for it (being uninvolved with the IP to begin with) and then he replied with the same commentary. To prevent further disruption, he was blocked and not allowed to edit his talk page. There was a posting on this board (or ANI, I cannot remember) that alerted me to the situation and I acted accordingly, as he had been previously "warned" by the bot messages on his page. I gave him a final warning, and he went against the warning.

I hope that this answers everyone's questions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, for that AFD that was mentioned above as one Mythdon started and I speedy deleted the article, if you read the comments at the AFD (and if administrators look at the deleted article) what I did was perfectly fine within policy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia is no excuse for abuse of rollback. If you think that rollback is just like any other "undo". Wrong, it is a circumstantial feature that shall be used to extreme caution. Your rollback rationals do not indicate reason or excuse to rollback. Doing so is abuse of privileges and I brought this up to you twice now. Now is the point where there is enough evidence to question your status as an administartor, given the evidence provided by other users who cited what you have been doing that is abuse. By the way, use the tools more justified and less abusive. Okay?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My use of rollback (something all administrators and even some users have) is not an issue of great merit here. Although I will attempt to use "Undo" more often (rollback tends to be easier when I see one user has made mutliple nonconstructive edits).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the other issues at the moment, but re: the AFD I linked above. At what point exactly did anyone say you did not delete it in line with policy? No doubt you will provide me with a diff. I cited it because it did not marry (on first inspection) with your comments at the susbsequent AFD, from where this complaint has stemed from i.e. the last AFD you had interacted on you both agreed. Your overly defensive attitude in your last remark is concerning to say the least. M♠ssing Ace 20:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It just seems that it was brought up in the rest of the discussion as some sort of action I may have taken against Mythdon and I wanted to clarify what I did. And the previous AFDs are brought up in more detail in my discussion with Mythdon (somewhat in private) throughout WT:TOKU.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you have no doubt seen, it wasn't :) It was a genuine edit to note that on the surface it seemed odd when you had been in prior "agreement". No big deal, I just wanted to clarify that I was not using that as some kind of argument of mis-action or whatever. M♠ssing Ace 20:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Er...last I heard WP:V didn't apply only to BLP articles. He's pefectly entitled to place a tag after an nreferenced sentence. Also thoat article is going to be deleted.--Patton^t/c 22:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The tagging itself was done disruptively after a certain point which is spelled out clearly at User talk:Mythdon#.7B.7Bfact.7D.7D tagging.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Having had a look at the diffs you provided, none of those tags are disruptive or unnecessary. They are uncited sentences that are not so blatantly obvious that they do not require a cite. That aside, you do realise that it's completely inappropriate to say something like "If you add anything like that again to the article before Saturday evening, you will be blocked", in response to good faith edits, no matter how poor you think they are, don't you? And blocking an IP editor and stopping them posting on their own talk page for not signing their posts was just completely beyond the pale. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

Support for the notion that {fact} tags are useful and necessary in all types of articles, not just BLP! Some of the other WP languages don't much bother with references. That gets to be a bad habit. I'm glad that en: enforces a strict policy on sourcing. - Hordaland (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A final warning that if a user continued to add unsourced information to articles is wrong considering how you are saying that my statement that the addition of {{fact}} tags got a bit disruptive was wrong?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well it seems I've stumbled upon an already on-going case. If Ryulong gets taken to RFCU or ARBCOM or anything like that would someone mind notifying me please, cheers. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the user Mythdon has only started 9 AFDs in the past two months, 6 of which were deleted. In my opinion I do not believe this is excessive. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the block for not signing was uncalled for. DuncanHill (talk) 02:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The block was not for not signing. The block for was intentionally not signing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Intentionally not signing is not blockable, in my opinion. DuncanHill (talk) 07:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving comments signed as "Intentionally unsigned" would be, particularly with the six threads on the IP's talk page, and his general disdain (it seems) on his former account (which he used to sign as) as well as apparently disrupting the talk discussions in general.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So intentionally not signing but not saying that it was intentional isn't? And "general disdain"? When we start blocking people for "general disdain" then we really have gone to the dogs. DuncanHill (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The user's activities beyond purposefully saying that he intentionally unsigned the comments was disruptive. That is what I am trying to explain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So you didn't block him for intentionally not signing but for other disruption? A very good contributor to the refdesks intentionally doesn't sign, and I'm worried that some over-zealous admin is going to block him if we accept the rationale you used here. And if "general disdain" is grounds for blocking you may as well indef me now. DuncanHill (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just forget I used that phrasing then, seeing as you feel like picking apart things I say for the sole reason of trying to make something that I did wrong when it had consensus at the time that I did it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to understand why you did what you did. I didn't find the block log convincing, and I don't find your attempts at explanation here convincing either. This may be because of some sort of linguistic or cultural misunderstanding. Still, this seems unproductive so I'm done with it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I warned the IP to stop and he replied by effectively saying "bring it on" and still using the "Intentionally unsigned" thing. Signing messages is part of the talk page guidelines, which are rarely given exceptions. I gave the user fair warning and his first edit upon returning to editing was to violate that warning. Seeing as I had never been involved with the user in the past and he had plenty of previous warnings (bot messages) I believe I acted accordingly. I am not going to block anyone for a similar action unless I actually find them doing it or it is brought up here (or ANI) as being done disruptively, as the IP clearly acted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And does this user you speak of sign his comments as "Intentionally unsigned" as the IP address did? Or does he simply never type ~~~~ after he posts? If either have been told to stop, and they continue to do so, it'd be disruptive and pointy as Crossmr states below.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

He signs as "Anonymous" and uses the !nosign! feature that all editors are allowed to use. There is nothing disruptive about his edits, and if you or anyone else goes and seeks him out to block him, then I would regard that as deliberately disruptive and pointy behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what this "!nosign!" feature is. And why would he bother signing as "Anonymous" if he has an account?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Who said he had an account? If you don't add ~~~~ and do put !nosign! in the edit summary, sinebot won't come along and sign for you. I take it you've heard of sinebot?

I know what Sinebot is. I just was not aware of it actually picking something like that up in the edit summary to not sign the comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with this point. If an IP (or any user) is specifically signing their posts "intentionally unsigned" it is pointy and disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But does it justify a month long block with talk page editing disabled? Tiptoety ^talk 20:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find a month block for not signing your posts in a way that someone wants to be taking things completely out of proportion. WP:SIGN says that the purpose of signatures on Wikipedia are to identify you as a user, if a user is always ending their posts with Intentionally Unsigned then it is a signature, as it uniquely identifies that user (even if it is a bit WP:POINTY). I also suggest, firmly and adamantly, that talk page editing is turned back on, and at the very least, the block should be shortened to a week. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 06:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Remove Ruylong as a admin

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.

---

1. support He is abusive 32.174.199.109 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

   Premature. If these rather questionable administrative actions continue, an RFC or RFAr can be the next step though with a view to removing the admin flag from Ryulong's account. I hope it doesn't come to that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC).

2. Comment Try. Requests. For. Arbitration. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A call to remove Ryulong as admin is exactly the kind of impetuous behavior he is being accused of. Ryulong should be advised to use blocking and the threat of blocking only as a last resort for users who engage in unambiguously bad-faith behavior for which the community has already established that blocking is an appropriate response. Likewise, his accusers should be advised to ask him about his rationales before jumping to conclusions, and follow normal process in having his case examined. This is the best way to seek an ideal outcome where Ryulong remains an effective admin while improving his relations to other editors. Dcoetzee 03:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Premature: I agree with Lankiveil and LessHeard, if you feel he should be desysopped, then take it to RFCu or RFAr. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Second chance If action is taken it should be here and not by ArbCom. The community needs an independent desyssoping process. I do not trust Ryulong as an administrator, however I think we should give him a second chance. If he does anything like this again I think it warrants his dessysoping.--Patton^t/c 13:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a question: why are we treating the suggestion of this IP address with only one edit being this very suggestion with any merit?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the suggestion has merit. If you're being overly aggressive in blocking people, you probably shouldn't be an admin. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly it does not because of the established users who disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, because instead of allowing this subsection to become a hanging party or worse a flame war between the pro's and cons a couple of editors suggested that this was an inappropriate venue - but it was done with all due respect (not that I checked, but an ip's edit history is meaningless in many cases since it may well be someone with a history who happened upon this addy - for whatever reason) so there could be no accusation of having a concern buried by "der Kaburl". LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) As an established user who is completely opposed to the above voting: That's mostly because such out-of-process lynching attempts detract from the real issue, which I find somewhat alarming --Hans Adler (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Broadly - unless an admin fucks Jimbo's dog on his lawn and then throws it threw his window attached to a bag of steaming turds - they are untouchable - so let's close this as a waste of time it will just remain people of how unaccountable our admins are and this will depress them and make them less likely to edit - thus harming the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad Cameron! No pet for you! -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo's got a dog? Ryan4314 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Pssst: "...throws it threw through..." —Travis^talk 04:11, 1 February 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.

Worse comment in that discussion

A far more disturbing edit to that AfD is arguing to delete under the claim that "Anyone who thinks Power Rangers is notable needs to get a life" and when an admin cautioned this new user, the new user replied by mocking the admin's spelling. Telling editors to "get a life" and then dismissing an admin's caution also needs to be considered if anyone is taking issue with Ryulong's comment. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the editor violated WP:CIVIL. But regardless, threatening to get an editor blocked for a simple AfD is far more disruptive and is a worse offense. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Ryulong seriously believes that the nomination was not constructive. Most of the "votes" for deletion are of the WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT vein or as in the example above outright insult editors. As far as I can tell, there is not a compelling case per WP:PRESERVE as to why this content must be deleted as it does not appear to be a hoax, concerns a character from a notable franchise that obviously some editors believe worthwhile to come here for, and appears to be merge or at least redirectable, but these are for talk page discussions and not AfD. With that said, I have seen you make reasonable arguments elsewhere, notably in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mesogog and so I'm not sure if there's a pattern as Ryulong suggested, because again in these two examples, I thought your arguments were sound. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

My argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction was not a good argument, but I thought it was then. I now think different about that article and am now neutral. If you check here, you'll see which AfD's I've made and you'll see whether it's just Ryulong or if they are not constructive. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Your argument was and still is good in that discussion, which is why it wasn't deleted at the time. I don't find the reasons for wanting to delete those various Power Rangers lists compelling; however, I am not sure they are such that would justify a block (the number of nominations you have is nowhere near the number that others have that I do find disruptive). They shouldn't be deleted and should as in the case of Sky Tate be either improved or merged or redirected with edit history intact, but not on par with some instances of spree nominations that perhaps are blockable. I do urge consideration for merges or for seeing lists as compromises, i.e. if you do not think we should have separate articles, perhaps consider at least boldly redirecting or merging to lists akin to the argument you made in Mesogg AfD. Best in any event, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The articles that I nominated for deletion needed to be deleted. Hopefully you've read every AfD. Lack of notability and/or verifiability are very valid reasons for deletion, but other reasons can be more valid. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not find notability a valid reason for deletion, because it is subjective, but verifiability is compelling; however, some of those are verifiable, which is why not all were deleted and nor should they have been. Pretty much nothing "needs" to be deleted that isn't a hoax or personal attack or copyright violation. Everything beyond that just comes down to personal taste or vision of what Wikipedia should be. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not the place for non-notable things. WP:NOTABLE is a reason for deletion, despite the fact that it is disputed as a reason. That is why we don't have articles on things made up one day.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit. What is and is not notable is debateable. In my opinion, as well as those who created, edit, and come here for those articles, characters from Power Rangers are notable, because they can be verified in sources and because they are from a mainstream franchise familiar to millions of people around the world that includes a variety of media. The user whom I quote above claiming that Powers Rangers is not notable is making an absurd statement, because even if you do not think we should cover all of its characters to suggest that even the show itself is not notable is just not accurate, but the fact that someone would use a notability argument to say that even the show itself is not notable reveals how problematic and subjective notability is as a concept. If we want to have some kind of inclusion criteria, okay, but we should call it that rather than come up with something called notability, which can and is interepreted subjectively by many, many editors, because in this one example, we run the gambit from someone arguing that the characters are so notable that nominating them for deletion is block worthy to someone arguing at least that the charcters aren't notable to even someone blanketing everything related to Power Rangers not being notable. Who knows which of these three stances is correct, if there is such a thing as even being "correct" when it comes to opinion and interpretation, but I would much rather err on the side of covering knowledge that is relevant to at least some people and that I am at least reasonably confident is not total nonsense than diminishing our overall usefulness to our readership and appeal to volunteers who are willing to work on this sort of material. Finally, I unquestionably don't think we should have articles on "things made up one day," which is why I have argued to delete over fifty articles; however, the article we're discussing was not "made up one day." The article contains some out of universe information (who played the character), indication of importance of the character (Power Rangers leader 2005 (2025)) and is verifiable as seen here from Google News. Per WP:BEFORE, I don't see why a merge and redirect would not have been attempted first or per WP:PRESERVE as an alternative to deletion. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying notability is a controversial issue? WP:NOTABLE is a powerful guideline and it is one of the more firm guidelines. In fact, it excludes sources affiliated with the subject, and per WP:RS, articles should rely on reliable secondary sources and not rely on primary sources. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is controversial, because it goes against encyclopedic tradition (look at the early Enlightenment encyclopedias or yearly update volumes of Britannica and you'll find many articles based on primary sources) and as argued by many editors, such as at User:Thanos6, Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Arguments against deleting articles for non-notability, User:Ziggurat/Notability, for example, and by looking at the lack of agreement at Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Final adoption as a guideline, the community has yet to agree what is and is not notable concerning fictional elements such as characters with some, including myself, thinking that "notability" is anti-wikipedic/elitist and that Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 27#Rename proposal makes more sense. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

←Mythdon, I would suggest that this discussion will be fruitless and not lead to any sort of satisfactory resolution. Most editors think that notability is an important and necessary guideline, a small but very vocal minority including User:A Nobody do not and take every opportunity to inform everybody of this fact. You're not the first person to have this debate with him, and I doubt you'll be the last. Getting back on topic, yes, the edit by that user was not constructive, and I have warned them on their talk page. I can't see any further action that needs to be taken. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)>

Most editors do not think notability is an important and necessary guideline as far more editors create, work on, and read articles that some deem non-notable that participate in AfD and guideline talk page (when a half dozen editors vote to delete in a five-day AfD for an article with hundreds of edits by unique editors and tens of thousands of page views, it's apparent who the vocal minority is). Only a vocal minority try to push these guidelines through, although they do not reflect the reality of article creation and readership, but in any event, I am glad you warned the user and agree that this thread is about the incivility in that AfD and not the larger issue of notability. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saw this, it's obvious that the "get a life" guy is nothing to do with the rest of the delete !voters, no one supported him and I personally quite agree with what DGG said. Just because one person "doesn't like it" doesn't mean the rest of us think that, in fact I believe Mythdon regularly edits Power Ranger related articles. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the rest of the editors necessarily believe what User:K;;m5m k;;m5m wrote, which is why I am not convinced Mythdon should be blocked and why I noted above that I have agreed with some of his arguments in AfDs elsewhere (I said that statement to show that I have not identified a pattern of frivolous nominations that justify a block); however, at the same time, I just wanted to be sure that in the uproar over Ryulong's comment, the other editor's incivility wouldn't be lost, especially as the AfD does have that other comment about editors needing to "get a life", not to mention some textbook WP:JNN/WP:ITSCRUFT and even a delete "vote" that focuses on an editor rather than the article. By the way, you ask what makes the subject nominated so special, if you look at the bottom of the article, you will see the character was the leader of the group, which makes him more notable than one off characters. Moreover, doing a quick search, I found that there are reviews that discussed the character. Surely, at least that kind of out of universe information can be merged and redirected at worst per WP:PRESERVE. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about Ryulong at this point?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, if you want to start a discussion on the perceived evils of deletionism, might I suggest that you start a discussion of your own, rather than hijacking this one and taking it way, way off topic? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

In response to A Nobody, I know there were a couple of silly !votes from both sides in that AFD, but they'll just be ignored by the closing admin. Unfortunately I must agree you are taking this thread a bit off topic (when compared to the first post), I think you should discuss the article in question on the AFD itself and you should discuss the notability policy at WP:N etc. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they do not seem to have been adequately discounted. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with my closure, please take it to DRV instead of making gratuitous comments here. I have disregarded all incivility and uncalled for comments from both sides, just like I have discounted the "referencing" of "out-of-universe" information you had done (i.e., ultimatedisney.com gave the name of the author that played the character in a cast list...) as insignificant. There were plenty of neutral, article-based and policy-based comments to base a decision on. Fram (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is probably best to do the DRV after this thread is archived. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion about deletionism, but about incivility in a particular AfD and is relevant to the larger thread by demonstrating that Ryulong's threat of blocking was not the only cause for concern in that AfD. Moreover, the final "delete" in the AfD is to threaten to "mock" Ryulong, which I'm not sure helps things either. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? In general? Or in regards to this specific discussion? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A Nobody, are you telling me you would've closed that discussion differently? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Was it a keep? No, but a no consensus or merge and redirect, yes. If it was okay to be redirected as happened at the time of the close, then there's no reason not to keep the edit history as well for purposes of a merge or for any other future editing of this content. Edit histories should only be deleted for hoax or libelous purposes. The AfD was tainted by incivility and hostility. The claim that the "leader" of the group was not notable is not really accurate and there was a clear merge/redirect location. AfDs are not votes and so even if ten people say "not notable", but it really is notable by some stretch of the imagination, then I have to discount that. We gain nothing from deleting the edit history; we arguable gain something by keeping it. I do not see any persuasive reasoning for the edit history to be removed. A case could be made for a merge and redirect, but when we know it is not a hoax, something somebody made up that day, not an obvious copy vio, not libel, etc., deleting the edit history of potentially mergeable and maybe even improveable content concerning a prominent character from a major franchise is counterproductive, but as I said above, I'll hold off on the DRV until after these threads are closed. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Closing an AfD where no one suggested a "merge and redirect" as "merge and redirect" would be rather bizarre... If people feel that there is nothing worthwhile in the editing history (nothing which should be merged, resurrected, ...), then there is no point in keeping the edit history. A plot summary with one trivial fansite reference is not the kind of editing we want to encourage. The content was not "potentially mergable or maybe even improvable". The target of the redirect already is a very poor, purely in-universe list, and merging more plot summary into it would make this even worse. However, as a courtesy to our readers, a simple redirect is perfectly acceptable. As for the tainting of the AfD: again, there were plenty of neutral comments to base the close on, and the hostility was started by those wanting to keep the article. To keep an article based on that premisse would set a very bad precedent. You are obviously free to take this to DRV, but I think that it will be a waste of time. Fram (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I reckon those who argued to keep and who created/worked on the article believe there is worthwhile content in the edit history. Articles that can be redirected can be redirected without having to also take the step to delete the edit history barring there is some kind of copy vio or libel that needs to be deleted. And this way, if/when new sources are found that can improve the content, editors do not have to start over or request undeletion, but rather have a basis to build from. By the way, for better or wrose I have seen at least one instance where sixteen editors bolded to keep versus five bolding to delete and zero bolding to merge or redirect actually closed as "merge" (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms of endearment (3rd nomination)), but anyway, I do not think a DRV is a good idea while this discussion is underway and I believe others above wish for the discussion to focus on the particular editors in the discussion. Thus, we should probably hold off further here until/if I decided for a DRV. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 08:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The only aspect of this discussion that is in anyway ongoing is your commentary and everyone else's replies to you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a bit uncalled for, and harsh. Ouch Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 04:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Link

Resolved

 – Redirect created and user welcomed. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Administrator - could you please link (Redirect) the word CARIACO in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cariaco_Basin page to the following page (recently created): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CARIACO_Ocean_Time_Series_Program

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llesath (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

IP able to edit despite block

Resolved

 – Dweller is Rip van Winkle

I'm curious. See this block log. The IP's most recent contrib seems to have come during the block period. Explanation welcomed! --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The block is from 2008. O Fenian (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Its a block log anniversary! We should have a small anti-vandalism party. Euryalus (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean it's not 2008 any more? When did that happen? <rubs sleep from eyes> --Dweller (talk) 11:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to 2009! Here's your sign. ;) —Travis^talk 13:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

user:NewMegaStar Spammer, copyvio, 3rr

violated 3rr, despite warning, by repeatedly removing speedy delete copyvio notices on article Almeda Abazi. user was warned repeatedly NOT to remove these notices. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• NewMegaStar (talk · contribs)

Well, that one was a mess. :/ Thanks for keeping on top of it until the content was deleted.

I see the article has been recreated by a contributor who I believe was attempting to clean it, but was evidently unaware that it was pasted from this blog. I have blanked the article and listed it at CP and advised the other contributor in case s/he wants to further revise in temporary space. As to user:NewMegaStar, I personally am inclined to think that any block short of indef would be punitive at this point (note that it most definitely would not have been during the time when behavior was ongoing, when a block would have served to stop the behavior). I think attempting a remedy short of indef blocking would be preferable and will leave him or her a note discussing this matter. If the contributor persists in copyright violation or other disruption, such as removing CSD tags from articles s/he creates, then I think an indef block would be warranted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Holder

Resolved

Hi, I'm Holder from the Alemannic Wikipedia. When I started to merge my accounts to a single login for all Wikimedia projects, I found the user user:Holder, who is blocked since several years. I want to submit an application that this blocked user is usurped, so that I can create a global account under the name Holder. Thanks, Holder-als (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:USURP. –xeno (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

ISIS neutron source

Could another admin please take a look at these edits by RLMCG (talk · contribs), and keep a general eye on the article (due to this promise of further action)? WP:OR and WP:V need to be explained to them, and the text in question removed, but I have a conflict of interest. Thanks! _TalkIslander 20:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Some help would be appreciated... _TalkIslander 17:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but that sure was unencyclopedic. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kasernewinkt

Resolved

 – Ruslik (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Kasernewinkt constantly keeps reverting Vladimir Lenin to what he calls a "merged section"1. He has broken 3RR and I need some admin support on this issue. Thanks Luna Rain^HowL_Cry 01:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for 24 hours. Ruslik (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

213.170.221.18

This ip seems to be editing from St. Lawrence College Athens, Greece, according to WHOIS (cpe-sanlorenz-3.egreta.gr) also quote:i personally am at st. lawrence college and i get the information straight from the school. the information i mentioned is recorded and can be confirmed by the school. [38]. The problem is that the article being edited is St Lawrence College, Athens which I also happened to attempt to wikify. I have warned the user of his or her WP:COI [39], [40]. Despite that the user keeps on reverting the article [41], [42], [43], [44] continuously adding WP:Peacock claims to it. I have tried to resolve the matter on the article's talk page, however the user has responded negatively and rudely to my urges for him or her to provide some sources for this unreferenced material or to read the WP:policies and guidelines [45], the user has also proceeded to threats of blanking the article's talk page as he already has done once [46], [47] in addition he or she seems to have vandalized the article [48], the user has also received warnings of vandalism on October 2007 and on November 2008. Please advise or take appropriate action. (I've moved this since it seems I posted it on a wrong ANI)--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a week. I am reluctant to block an IP without more ample warnings. If the IP resumes the conduct in a week, come back and post again and post a link to this discussion. I think you will find admins willing to take more energetic measures. In the meantime, please post an explicit warning on the IP's talk page telling him what he did wrong, why it is wrong, and that he stands likely to be blocked for a priod of time (which is what we do with IPs) if the conduct continues. Also watch out for the use of other IPs at the school, if that happens come back to this board, and post again. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Botlinks|Thehelpfulbot

Resolved

 – Fixed error with bot and reverted the talk page edits The Helpful One 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This bot appears to have been adding sections for <references/> tags to non-articles such as talk pages or even AFDs. [49] [50]. Should it be blocked for now, and all of it edits to Talk: space, Wikipedia: space, other non-main namespaces reverted? FunPika 20:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stopped the bot. I'll fix these errors and find out what's wrong with the bot.. :S The Helpful One 20:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rollbacked edits and fixed the problem with the code - restricted to namespace 0 - i.e. Mainspace. Sorry about this! :) The Helpful One 20:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit/move war over Wikipedia:Editing policy

A handful of users are edit/move warring over Wikipedia:Editing policy to "demote" it to a guideline on the strength of a limited-participation discussion (with no clear sign of consensus). Please comment on the situation at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. It's my feeling that move protection would also be warranted until such time as a consensus is formed for the change -- though not edit protection: changes to the text are being negotiated.--Father Goose (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In hopes that calmer heads prevail, I say we hold off on protection; we can always block the users who chose to be disruptive. Also, I have warned User:Father Goose. Tiptoety ^talk 07:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good heavens. While I am one of five users who has been involved in this pagemove dispute (two on one side, three on the other, so far), do you understand why I have brought it to your attention?

I came here for help in trying to get the situation resolved through discussion instead of getting snared in a multi-party edit war. I do not wish to be a participant in an edit war; it's clear at this point that the issue is far from having consensus and needs further discussion, and I wish to compel the parties who are trying to force the issue through warring to come to the table instead.

So, given that, can I ask for anyone's help in resolving the dispute?--Father Goose (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unclear why you needed to "warn" Father Goose Tiptoety. S/he has not broken 3RR and has used informative edit summaries. I don't see an edit war here. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm very concnerned by this approach on the part of Tiptoety: Two revert with full edits sumaries asking for discussion before coming to ANI is not edit warring. Anyway, I've placed a general warning on the talk page, and will watch developments. - brenneman 13:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, okay. Maybe I made a mistake here, and explaining myself will most likely not change anyone's mind but I will do so anyways.

My attention to this issue was not brought upon by this AN thread, matter of fact at the time I had Father Goose's contribs open and was deciding what to do. He had not yet started a AN thread, and so far was the only one to make two page moves. To me pagemove warring is the most disruptive form of edit warring (which mind you, does not have to violate 3RR to constitute edit warring). Anyways, had it been me, I would have came directly here or took a step in dispute resolution after my first page move had been reverted instead of reverting. Because he was already on his second revert I thought it best to issue him a warning, in hopes that he would stop and no administrative action (blocks, page protection) would need to be taken. My ultimate goal was to stop the edit war from continuing, not blocking someone. Sorry if I cam across harsh, Tiptoety ^talk 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that pagemove warring is the most disruptive form of edit warring, which is why I raised the issue here. I chose to revert the pagemove (a second time) before raising the issue here because those who were not joining the discussion would have no motivation to join it if the page were protected on their preferred version. (Page protection is extremely gameable in this respect.) Should a consensus actually emerge for the "demotion" and the pagemove, I would accept it even if I disagreed with it.

I think this case illustrates the wisdom of don't template the regulars. If you questioned my judgment in the matter, you should have contacted me on my talk page (or at WT:Editing policy) to communicate your concerns and to better ascertain my motives. Just chucking a warning (a threat, really) at me would have inflamed the situation even if my motives had not been honorable.

Nonetheless, I take your comments above as an apology, and I appreciate it. I hope you can take to heart my advice about communicating; templating and other snap judgments tend to hinder dispute resolution, which I assume is the opposite of your intention.--Father Goose (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety did it to me, too. Someone reported me on WP:AN3. Admin William M. Connolley – not known for being a softie – closed it as "no vio. obviously, there are only three reverts". Tiptoety overrode this and issued a block threat against me. When I objected on his Talk page, he dismissed my objection, with a snide "nice try" in the edit summary. Like blocks, block threats can have a chilling effect on editors, and should be used with caution and judgment, not by application of WP:IAR.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to User_talk:Goodmorningworld/Archive_1#Bethmanns_and_Rothschilds from November 2008? From what I can tell, WMC said there was no 3RR and Tiptoety warned you for edit warring. Those are two different things, so I'm not certain he overrode anything here. Maybe WMC or Tiptoety could clarify. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember that vaguely. If I recall, WMC declined as no vio simply because three reverts were not made withing 24 hours. Either way, the edits were counterproductive and constituted a waring (not a threat). Anyways, no administrative action was taken, and the warning issued was done so with the utmost care and respect. WP:AGF :-) Tiptoety ^talk 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So one admin declined to block and another admin decided to issue a warning. It seems to me that there's no conflict between those two decisions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety, as far as I'm concerned you've forfeited your right to AGF, due to your extremely arrogant and callous attitude. And don't tell me how to read the English language. A threat ("will be blocked if they continue") is a threat is a threat. "Utmost care and respect?" LOL.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

←Concerning the source of the dispute: please visit WT:Editing policy. For about half a year, I've been hearing this complaint of "not enough editors, not enough notice" in policy discussions, a lot. It's just more difficult to attract editors to policy discussions than it used to be, for whatever reason. (I suspect people are more interested in content issues than policy issues these days, which is good.) If we're not paying as much attention to these pages, that's all the more reason to either fix or demote them; policy is policy, and shouldn't be allowed to get out of sync with other policy pages or with community expectations. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Per-article blocking

Since Per-article blocking seemed to have consensus back in 2005, and bugzilla:674 was adopted, is there any chance of this extension being activated any time soon? This could be a valuable tool, especially with rangeblocks that would otherwise cause too much collateral damage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• This would be great for enforcing topic bans. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Great for 3RR too I think! Viridae^Talk 21:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support per WP:WTHN. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of this, per Guy and Viridae, but note to Tim: I was dejected to discover, when this was mentioned a few months ago on WP:AN or WP:ANI or somewhere, that rangeblocking specific articles would not be possible. I had hoped it could replace article semiprotection or site-wide rangeblocking for an article-specific vandal on a dynamic IP, but was told it could only be one account/IP per article block. --barneca (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
• This would be really handy for enforcing topic bans - no admin should waste their precious time monitoring someone when the software can do it for us. Dcoetzee 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

... and reverted on SVN again. Looks like we have to wait. MER-C 01:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The last comment on the bugzilla page[51] is from Brion, and seems to show this was removed in r45241[52]. If it is indeed enabled, this would make article and topic bans enforcable by software. Has anyone tried it on a test wiki to see if it would also generate page specific autoblocks? But I concur that turning this on would be a good thing. GRBerry 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Per-article blocking was also discussed this week at WP:VPR. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

CSD backlog

Resolved

 – Cleared. _Gb^T/c 06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a major backlog at CAT:CSD. feel free to help and remove this post after wards.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

And in other news, this guy subscribes to this view. Backlog cleared. _Gb^T/c 06:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Trying to move an article I've written from my homepage to a new article page...???

Hi. Sorry for my ignorance here, but I've been searching everywhere for how to do this and I haven't been successful...it's making me nuts.

I have created an article (I created it on my own home page: BluesBoy1) and I want to move it to another stand-alone page I'm trying to create.

If you can help me move the content I've created on BluesBoy1 to a new article page entitled PETE HAYCOCK, that would be fantastic.

Thanks very much for your help. My article is objective, thoroughly researched, cross-referenced, accurate, unbiased, and should meet the guidelines of Wikipedia.

Please notify me on my talk page.

Gracias!

BluesBoy1

BluesBoy1 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll move it for you, and I've also given you a "welcome box" on your talk page to help you find your way around. By the way, requests for this sort of help should really be made at the Help desk, but we all got confused when we started out! DuncanHill (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unethical conduct by User:Russavia

Please react to extremely rude personal attacks of Russavia: [53]. Also, the user continues to play with the rules placing unwarranted tags without presenting any valid grounds.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some other editors were also complaining about the same lately: [54].Muscovite99 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Muscovite has been found by the Russian arbcom committee to be a persistent POV-pusher.[55] [56] [57] and is currently enjoying yet another week long block ru:Обсуждение_участника:Muscovite99. There are issues with the article as mentioned, and which are discussed, but Muscovite in his own words has persistently removed dispute tags which have not been resolved, as in his own words he wants to make the "most grotesque" article possible. I also warned him that if he should accuse me of being in the employ of the Russian government again, as he did here I would take that further, as per the arbcom decision that found that accusing editors of being in the employ of governments is not helpful, and considering that it was because of insinuations made by the user on whose talk page that accusation by Muscovite appeared, I am somewhat appalled that said editor not only did not tell Muscovite this, but has actually encouraged him somewhat. One will note that Muscovite comes to enwiki and engages in persistent POV-pushing and disruption only when he has been blocked from ruwiki. And if he thinks that the tagging is frivolent, then he is mistaken, as whilst I am not wanting to write a glowing positive article, I do want a NPOV article, and it is impossible to do as such when someone admits they want the most grotesque article possible. As to other things Muscovite brings up, that is under discussion and will be a soon to come case at WP:AE. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As has been said elsewhere, this is a content dispute, and should be handled as such. Please use those channels. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean the use of such language as "<…> This does not mean that you need to come back to en:wiki, and continue with the same sort of bullshit you pull over at ru:wiki." (See the first link above) is a content dispute? What are WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA then about?Muscovite99 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that. I suggest you both avoid climbing the Rechstag dressed as Spider-Man (after searching through a multitude of essays to find the most appropriate one). get back to worrying about the article and stop arguing about "baw, User:X insulted me and it was teh personal attacks!!11!1" Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot. That was quite educating in showing up (by way of contrast) how ludicrously politicised and KGB-controlled the RuWP is.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Step right up, get your tickets here. Don't miss out on the comedic stylings of Muscovite99. Don't be disappointed, buy your tickets now. That has got to be funniest damn thing I have heard all day Muscovite; well actually no, the funniest thing was the message on my talk page where you claimed that you got banned on the orders of Putin. This is the second funniest thing. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The above is not the only example of Russavia's incivility against Muscovite99. See the edit comment of this diff, which refers to Muscovite99's request to refrain from disruptive tagging as "nuttery". In background of other related uncivility issues in very recent pass, I can only ask: wikistress? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no the nuttery is his claim that Putin ordered the Arbcom on ruwiki to ban Muscovite. It's laughable nuttery. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Query: Is the FSB/KGB's control over the Russian WP as complete as The Cabal's control over the English WP?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Any editor who doesn't agree with him is also a member of the Russian security service or the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs super-secret Wikipedia propaganda department (this is who I am employed with according to him), so their control over Russian WP is more complete than the Cabal's control over English WP, becuase now the FSB/KGB's control also extends to English WP. I can see a ring of cuckoo's flying around one's head right now. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• As a matter of fact, Russavia continue to attack fellow editors even after receiving an official warning from an uninvolved administrator. The nuttery is propagated by Russavia who said about himself: "I can confirm that I am a member of the secretive Russian government team of internet agents." (at the bottom of this diff).Biophys (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite came to my talk page with his attitude, and got my response, well before that. And my confirmation was a hypothetical statement in order to show this is all one would have to do to prove Arbcom wrong...of course, anyone with half a brain in their head can clearly see that. I'm off, back to editing, which of course means that I am really back off to increasing the KGB's influence on WP (if some people's insane opinions are to be believed). --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record: Russavia's statement "the funniest thing was the message on my talk page where you claimed that you got banned on the orders of Putin" (see above) is just another downright lie by this editor. Funny though, that this statement of his can be seen as his own recognition that Putin equals Putinism, which happens to be the exact opposite of what Russavia had been arguing all along when insisting on removing the material in the relevant article that speaks of only "Putin" (rather than "putinism").Muscovite99 (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding Russavia' "Please note that Muscovite has been found by the Russian arbcom committee to be a persistent POV-pusher." First of all, other projects are not relevant. This comment is nothing but an attempt to smear an editor. Frankly, given the dreck I have read on RU Wikipedia regarding just areas of interest to myself (e.g., Baltics, etc.), I would be edit-warring on a daily basis deleting outright lies. As far as I'm concerned, the whole of Russian and Soviet history on RU WP is suspect and I applaud any editor with the cajones (to use one of Russavia's terms, I'll spare you the diff) to combat it. What I see is an increasing escalation by Russavia attacking editors with whom they disagree. PetersV       TALK 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

St. Augustine's College (Raleigh)

Resolved

 – Added to my watchlist and some edits already made. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at this article? It seems to have suffered a recent dose of WP:SCFT. I've been speedying images from it as replaceable fair use and/or blatant copyvios. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Donadio

Donadio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This is an obvious single purpose account. Check that all his edits are dedicated to promote disruptions in the article White Brazilian. This user was already blocked 2 times (on the same week) for disruptions in this same article.[58] He keeps manipulating sources in Portuguese, so that nobody can read them, then he feels free to include any informations not even listed in the source. Moreover, he keeps attacking any informaton about Italian people in this article. Seems like a persecution. It's a clear disruptive single purpose account. Opinoso (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, he also uses sockpopets (see 200.198.196.129). Opinoso (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is the 5th time this editor has been brought to the attention of an admin board this year ([59] see this). Can whoever has the fortitude to review this indef ban either the complainant or complainer - or both - for once and for all. I would like to point out that by suggesting the complainer is blocked I am not prejudging the validity of the complaint, but I am getting so tired of it that my deja vu is getting flashbacks... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Topic bans? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected template edits needed

Per discussion on User talk:Erik9bot, certain WikiProject templates have incorrect defaultsort code, such that failure to provide a "listas" parameter causes an explicit defaultsort as {{PAGENAME}}, creating a defaultsort conflict when affected banners are used on the same talk page as a Wikiproject banner with a listas parameter other than {{PAGENAME}} supplied. The code can be fixed by replacing {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}}}}}} or {{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} with {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}}}} [60]. While I edited all affected WikiProject templates that are not fully protected to fix the problem, Template:WikiProject Greece, Template:WikiProject Scouting, Template:WikiProject Ireland, Template:WPFlorida, Template:WPBooks, Template:NovelsWikiProject, and Template:WPBiography still use the incorrect code, and are fully protected, so administrative help is needed. Thanks. Erik9 (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated Template:WikiProject Greece, Template:WPFlorida, Template:WPBooks, and Template:NovelsWikiProject. The others didn't have the exact line of code you referenced as the original, and I didn't want to just wing it. :)
If you give me the exact lines of code for the three remaining templates, I'll be happy to make the edits. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For Template:WikiProject Scouting and Template:WikiProject Ireland, {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|}} }} is replaced. For template:WPBiography, {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }} is updated. In both cases, the new code is {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}}}} Erik9 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Expreienced user PAing, assumes bad faith, and more...

Resolved

per Guy307 comment of 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:pdfpdf created the article Rick Neigher, which I came across while New Page Patrolling. I marked the article for Speedy (a7), and PDFPDF then reverted. Then, he addded a comment [61] to my user page. I had then replied, very calmly, in his talk page [62]. User then added this edit [63] to my talk page, which is considered a personal attack per WP:PA. We had then went into a long conversation, each writing in the other's talk page (see the history of User talk:Guy0307 and User talk:pdfpdf. User has accused me of harrasing multiple times (which, I never did) asserted his right to delete a csd template while being the creator of the article (wrong), and claimed that he is not PAing me. User has then deleted all of the discussion on his talk page (which shouldn't be done per WP:RPA.) User has also referenced MoS to prove that he is right each time, even when MoS had nothing to do with his/my actions. Guy0307 (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him. The article needs to be deleted, it doesn't assert notability and cites no sources. As for the attacks, well take those as a sign of your good work.--Patton^t/c 13:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article asserts sufficient notability, although adequate references are still lacking. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 19:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 is is not about establishing notability, it's about asserting it. I agree it could do with some references to support the latter, though. --Rodhullandemu 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

One minor note, he is perfectly entitled to remove the discussion from his talk page, per WP:TALK. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrap this. Everything is OK now. Guy0307 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible links in breach of copyright

Perhaps someone can point us in the right direction, or perhaps it can be discussed here, but I've got a bit of a doozy here. The article Lubyanka Criminal Group includes the statement, "In response, the authors had withdrawn from their copyright. The book can be freely printed and reproduced by anyone." This is sourced to Prima News (archive.org copy) (to replace the dead link, and the copyvio source it was replaced with). A link has then been supplied to http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpg.htm, where the entire source of the book can be found. I have removed this link from the article, after coming across it whilst removing other compromat.ru links, as they do host articles from other media in violation of copyright, and also because they are not a reliable source for information. I do realise that I have breached 3RR, although this is a good faith breach due to what I believe may be a breach of copyright. The first problem that I have is that the statement published by Prima News, I am unable to find confirmation of this withdrawal of copyright elsewhere, including on runet. I have searched current and archive.org versions of kolokol.org and kolokol.ru (these are the websites to the Foundation for Civil Liberties, and have been unable to find anything on those sites. The second thing is on http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpg.htm, at the top there is a copyright notice "© GRANI, New York, 2002". The same notice is also on individual chapter pages, e.g. http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpgg1.htm, has "© GRANI, New York, 2002, "ЛПГ-Лубянская преступная группировка", Александр Литвиненко". Now I realise that that book is copyrighted in 2002, and that the Prima News article is from 2004, but the existence of that copyright symbol and the lack of results in finding is enough to make me wary about having a link on the article in relation to Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking. Also, given the nature of the website on which it is hosted, WP:ELNO #2 also gives me cause for concern in linking to it, but WP:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking is my primary concern. I have asked one of the editors of the article about the copyright and its suitability for Wikisource (which if it is in fact been released into PD, this is the best place to link to), and he isn't too sure either, so it is better to be safe than sorry and remove the link. I have attempted to send email to [email protected], as provided in the prima link, but it is not a valid email address. I think some further assistance may be needed in helping to determine the copyright status of these books, but am unsure where to bring such concerns, hopefully we can determine it here? --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well even the archive "releasing the copyright" says "our Foundation has received a license to print and distribute these books in Russia, and we grant this right free of charge to anybody who wishes to do so", my emphasis on the "print and distribute" and "in Russia", that's fairly restrictive anyway, no rights for derivatives, debatable as to if electronic distribution is permissible and the geographic restriction. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking when I was looking at it. In that, if it was released into PD, there would be nothing stopping me from printing it, but substituting other people's names or whatever (the derivative), and the "release" is also pretty vague. Does it only apply to Russian language book? Or English language? For example, it is possible to copyright a work in English language, but release its Swahili translation into PD, whilst still holding copyright over other languages. That's the problem I do have with the release, and which I thought I mentioned but didn't, so thanks for raising that also. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As copyright holder you have fairly broad rights and the language of publication wouldn't affect that. If you released into PD you waive all your rights, so derivatives, publishing translations etc. would be fine. So you couldn't release the Swahili translation into PD, you could however grant a license to anyone to reproduce that version, whilst retaining control over versions in other languages. The intent (in my eyes) appears to be to enable free publication within Russia without the restraint of the state, that issue doesn't occur outside of Russia and so is presumably still a normal commercial market which I suspect they would still be able to exploit. --81.104.39.44 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unauthorized bot?

Resolved

 – Forum shopping is bad. And not a bot. BJ^Talk 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:LilHelpa claims to not use a bot for reverting, but this mistake seems so blatant that it appears likely to have been made in an automated manner. I think this should be investigated. TubeToner (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of users do that. Simon^KSK 23:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Curps

Does anyone know what has happened to Curps over the last two and a half years?? Is he still alive?? Egebwc (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something for immediate admin attention; they are not here to keep tabs on your social life. You might want to check out the big sign on his userpage saying 'I'm on very long-term wiki-vacation. Good luck to everyone'. Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible compromised account

I bring SoUnusual (talk · contribs · logs) this editor here for review; the edits are out of character and continued past a final warning, adding personal attacks. Accordingly, I take the view that this is a compromised account and cannot be trusted until its rightful operator makes it clear s/he has retained control of it. I've also disabled email on the account on the basis that whoever currently has the password may use it to troll. Either way, it does not reflect well on the account operator. --Rodhullandemu 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser indicates that the account is not compromised. --Deskana (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Deskana; from that I read that the IP checks out, which means that we may be left with "my room-mate hijacked my account"; so at best lax security is an issue and I feel happy with my block. --Rodhullandemu 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The trolling behaviour is not new. See [64], where the information is false and the ref fabricated.-gadfium 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

drake circus

see AN/I thread

There has been a long history of countless editors who have been blocked or banned for attempting to publish any fact or article that might conflict with the promotional activity of a handful of other editors To summarize Drake Circus is an area of Plymouth which is home to the university of Plymouth, the Art gallery, the Museum, the Art College, grade 1 and 2 listed buildings, the planetarium, the Drake reservoir, the scene of the great bomb shelter tragedy etc etc and yet all and any attempts to publish articles or facts on these topics have been deleted in favour of an advert for a shopping mall. I recently entered this debate when I tried in vain to point out the mall is not even in the Drake Circus area (the only similarity is its name). The co-ordinates in the article will, on any map (e.g. Google earth), point to Drake Circus the area and not the mall which is located further south. My attempt to discuss this issue rationally has been met with hostile abuse and deletions from webhamster a.k.a hoary and jolly janner. If you look at the history of both the article and the discussion pages you will see the endless number of people who have been blocked. On one occasion somebody in Indonesia was blocked as being a sock puppet for somebody who was online and with an IP in the UK. Various ip's from all over the world have been constantly blocked. So why are these handful of editors so desperate to protect and preserve an article which is factually wrong and a blatant piece of advertising. The only inference one can draw is that they are going to these extraordinary lengths in order to benefit the mall. If you Google search 'drake circus bomb shelter' the first web-site contains many interesting comments that in the long term will lower the reputation of Wikipedia. There has already been an attempted deletion however so many useful facts and comments were edited out by the pro-mall spammers it made a discussion pointless. Those same few editors are gaming the system to skew any reasonable discussion, debate or introduction of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.96.112 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Boubaker polynomials

Greetings,

The above-captioned article was created and, most importantly, deleted on a number of wikis (including this one) some time last year. It has been the subject of massive sockpuppetry and spamming on various wikis, particularly on :fr (see Wikipédia:Vandalisme_de_longue_durée/Mmbmmmbm and our own AN for a detailed list and background story in French).

The article has been re-created by Luoguozhang, who pretended to be editing from China. Well, not really.

This person uses the presence of the article on :en to pressure other wikis to restore their own version of the article. I'm not too familiar with your local practices, but do we have to restart an AfD request, or can you just wipe and protect the page?

Thx & Regards, Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the edge of speedying it as recreation of deleted material. Anyone disagrees? -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other editors involved in the article. I don't want to prolong this if it is a blatant recreation, but I feel that some input should be requested on the subject from those who understand it. ^LeaveSleaves 14:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The current version at least has references (though I haven't checked them yet; I merely note that they exist) and it isn't the crawling horror that the original misformatted article was, so it does address concerns from the original AfD. I'd send it to AfD again, with a mention of the questionable notability and history of problems. Unless there's evidence this term is widely used, it will likely get deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Popo, I am an admin on :fr and was a protagonist of previous deletions and struggles against an obsessive and disruptive editor. Nonetheless, I have noticed that this last recreation was discussed on this wiki's Mathematics Project, with some participants supporting the existence of the article. Hence, it seems obviously outside speedy deletion scope, as sad as it may be for any person who has previous experience of its main author. French Tourist (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics pointing to this discussion. As French Tourist notes, this is not speediable, and I'm not convinced it would even be deleted in a full AfD. Some attention to the sockpuppetry seems warranted but other than that I don't see that there's any particular administrative action to be taken at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article is indeed a bit better than the stub it used to be, despite being referenced too. Not a mathematic expert myself, it would be interesting to see whether the problems raised in the first AfD are now moot. (At least there's no hint Scolas is around this time). I'd say WP:AFD it, then, Popo. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a French contributor, and as I took part of the several deletion procedures on wp:fr, I can ensure that these polynomials are strickly unknown... There is no serious references, the displayed publications have not been made in recognized proceedings... Moreover, the pseudo of the author of the current article has appeared on wp:fr, asking for restauration ... And check users show that these contributions come from Tunisia... far from China as claimed... Ico83

Just to confirm that indeed, there was discussion about whether or not to allow recreation at the WikiProject back in autumn. I was the admin who did the latest AfD closure ("delete with strong prejudice against recreation"), and I would have felt comfortable speedying it again, but people at the WikiProject seemed to think it might be worth giving it a chance once more. We were aware at the time that the alleged Chinese newbie contributor was another sock, but there didn't seem to be a formal ban in force against him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The first incarnation was deleted basically because there wasn't enough there to be worth an article; the second was deleted for lack of scholarly references; the third HAS the references, so it's not a recreation. That's considered OK: It's not a recreation of deleted material if the reasons for deletion do not apply to the new article because of differences between it and the old one. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just want to point out that "Boubaker polynomial" now has several hits on Google scholar, which appear to be articles in serious physics journals. This seems to represent a major change in notability since the original deletion discussion. Jim (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I found this intersting paper in a Russian journal " Differential Equations and Control Processes " with authors from several Nationalities (China, Nigeria, Usa ...) about Boubaker Polynomials : possibility of downloading at :http://www.neva.ru/journal/j/EN/numbers/2009.1/issue.html Probably the nationality of the of the polynomials first extablisher was not welcomed in th French WP (In Africa many countries were French colonies until 1960). But as a scientific item, ther is no extra problem. Perhaps the question: why these polynomials were rejected in the French WP regardless WP rules can now have any answer ? Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Désolé, vous avez cette erreur le wiki? --Kralizec! (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was rejected here because (a) it's a trivial modification of an already-existing article, and (b) there was no credible source that the name is actually used in the field. Problem (b) seems to have been resolved, but we still have problem (a). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I do confirm all the normal :fr procedure has been applied. This page is rejected due lack of notability, as discussed and agreed several times. Zetud (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC) (sysop :fr)

We must update our information about Boubaker Polynomials

The rules of WP are clear ( EXTRACTED from WP Standards):

1. Have they been the main subject of (at least two) published papers, or chapters in a book, or an entire book about this sequence?

2. Are they cited in MathWorld or PlanetMath ?

3. Are they cited in in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS)?

4. Do they have a demonstrated (and/or) published expression?

The polynomials were rejected in the French WP DESPITE FULFILLING ALL THE 4 rules ???? This is the Nonsense, One must not be very wise to understand the reasons ( when one just see the actual discussion in WP Fr about these polynomials http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Bulletin_des_administrateurs/2009/Semaine_6#Polyn.C3.B4mes_de_Boubaker

Some translations:

On ne peut rien faire pour le virer ? Ico Bla = How to do to cick these polynomials away from En WP ??? C'est dingue qu'ils aient gardé ça sur wp:en, Quand on voit le contenu, la notoriété infinitésimale de ces polynomes ..., je ne vois pas comment ils ont pu laisser ça = It is Foolish, how did they (En. WP) allow these miserably notable polynomilas ??

Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the French. If you have a problem there, then you should post to its noticeboard, not this one. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh! Fortunately it is English Wikipedia, not the French; we are addressing an answer to what is evoked above in the english Wikipedia, not in the French (were we are, systematically blocked !) we do not have any problem Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indef block

I've had enough of this sock show. I know Boubaker used to sock previously, it was clear "Luoguozhang" was a sock from the start, but we've all sort of tolerated him. But "Duvvuri.Kapur1" is quite obviously yet another, as quack as quack can be. I've indef'ed the whole lot of them, and propose to treat him/them as indef community banned from now on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

These seem overly sever to me, disruption to the wiki is small with only few contributions between them and none of those seem to be particular personal attack or in breach of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy or WP:SOCK.--Salix (talk): 01:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They were most certainly in breach of WP:SOCK. He was systematically pretending to be two personas different from his known identity, to hide his COI and to pretend there was a higher level of public interest in his polynomials topic. BTW, I got aware only afterwards that there were two "Duvvuri Kapur" accounts involved, Duvvuri.kapur (talk · contribs) and Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk · contribs). Interestingly, one of them let slip his moustache and outed himself as Luoguozhang from the beginning ([65]), whereas the other introduced himself as a mathematician from "an Indian university" ([66]), just as Luoguozhang had explicitly claimed he was from China; Duvvuri and Luo kept talking to each other providing the other with useful cues ([67]). This Duvvuri account even had the cheek of posting an unblock request trying to continue his sorry charade as a "fan" of Boubaker [68] Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

• Ancient Egyptian race controversy

This issue has been going on for more than a week now, and with the latest developments, I personally think that the case is clear. User:Wapondaponda made on change that probably was covered by wp:bold: diff Then, I made one revert that would be covered by wp:brd, accordingly: diff. On the talk page a discussion about the issue developed, which actually turned out better then I had expected. But, then user:Deeceevoice made another full revert, restoring Wapondaponda's suggestion diff and asked that I should be banned from the article on the talk page diff .

The article Ancient Egyptian race controversy ancient Egyptian is placed on probation:

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."

Changing the lead (not to mention adding four to five new subtopics) is, of course, a substantial edit. The new first sentence of the article: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times.", is not supported by any citation and is, as far as my knowledge about the topic is concerned, definitely false. I am not going to start an edit war about this. I am simply going to place {{TotallyDisputed}} on the article and leave. But some uninvolved admin better take a good look at the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to see Zara back here on this. She's just finished a massively disruptive rewrite of the article that involved sweeping changes. For the second time now, she's unilaterally slapped an "in-use" tag on the article and then edited against talk page consensus, completely failing to notify anyone of her intentions or to participate in the ongoing debate about article scope. And now she's back here, presumably in an attempt to get the article locked down again (which she succeeded in doing after the last time she shut the article down for her personal use). Let Brenneman do his thing as a facilitator for a while and see what develops. Perhaps Zara's (threatened) exit (this is the second time she's said she would leave) is a good thing. Her actions at the article are just amazingly willful and extremely disruptive, and whether she stays or goes, it's got to stop. I've stated my intention, if she persists in such destructive conduct, to request a content ban. Hopefully, that won't be necessary. deeceevoice (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a correction to Zara's comment: the diff was not calling for an immediate ban from the article, but warning that further such unilateral edits would result in DCV calling for a ban. Also, there is already an uninvolved admin, User:Aaron Brenneman helping with the article, and doing a more than decent job of it, especially under the circumstances. I'd say if Aaron wishes further admin assistance that's fine, but to let him make the call.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Zara behavior needs to be dealt with" is admittedly open to interpretation. If you want my opinion, Tom Harrison has evaluated the situation correctly User talk:Tom harrison#Banning. If you look at the history of the talk pages, you will see that previously another editors had also been banned from the article. The very same issue of the scope of the article is now recurring. Zara1709 (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While that stand-alone statement may be "open to interpretation," clearly you deliberately took it out of context, because the passage reads, in part:

"This is the second time Zara has slapped an 'in use' tag on the article and edited unilaterally and extensively. I suggest we stop this behavior, and that we do it now. Zara['s] behavior needs to be dealt with. She clearly has no respect for the process of collaboration and is determined to see her language prevail.

"I suggest we come to a very clear consensus here and now that any such further conduct on Zara's part will result in a request for a content ban."

My words are open to deliberate misrepresentation, but nothing about them is "open to interpretation." deeceevoice (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what Ramdrake said, on all points. And he's correct. I didn't call for a ban on Zara, though, to my way of thinking, I'd have been perfectly justified in doing so. The fact of the matter is Zara's done what she's (inaccurately) accused me of doing. She earlier branded me a troll when I called her on it the first time she shut down the article, then called for my banning.[69] And, yup. It happened, but it was wholly unwarranted, utterly unjustified, and it didn't stick. So, it is in this atmosphere that Zara did it again! She put up an "in-use" tag, made massive edits against a developing consensus without prior notice, and with no attempt at explanation/justification. All things considered, I think my response has been a fairly measured one. ;) So, if anyone is tempted to intervene -- and, again, I don't think it's warranted -- please don't jump in with both feet. I know admins are busy people with a lot of demands on their time. But take a moment to familiarize yourself with what's really been going on with the article first. Aaron Brenneman's efforts at shepherding (as opposed to bullying) the article and maintaining some semblance of order there deserve at least that. Peace. deeceevoice (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the sentence about banning was worded rather badly and I should have been more precise. What I meant should become more clear if you look at Talk:Race of ancient Egyptians/Archive 14. I have, there, been of the opinion that that article should have a broader scope, but after some discussion if started to reconsider my opinion and didn't defend that any more. But there was another editor, user:Big-dynamo who continued the discussion. And in that discussion Moreschi wrote at one point:

"Can someone please bite the bullet and ban this troll? To say that Afrocentrism is only part the controversy surrounding the ancient Egyptian race controversy is so wrong I don't even know where to start. It's all about Afrocentrism, and Big dynamo has just conclusively proved he should not be editing this topic area."

This is what I was referring to. After August 2008 I spent some more time on the issue. You can find some of my result in the old revisions of Race in ancient history. And I actually came to the conclusion that Moreschi was right concerning the scope. The article has to be very largely about Afrocentrism. In other issues Moreschi turned out to be wrong, like that about meme. Anyway, if you want to have an article with a broader scope, you should have either 1) participated in the discussion or 2) allow the time for a throughout discussion now.

On second though, therefore, I can't allow the scope of the article to be changed like that. I will revert to the more narrow version, and if we get an edit war, I have to request that the article is fully protect while we discuss the issue ( or for 3 months, which ever is less). I am really disappointed that most editors from the old discussion aren't showing up (Wikiscribe being the notable exemption) and I am largely the only one who is defending the previous consensus. Any any case, if deeceevoice gets her version pushed through, then some admin please apologize to user:Big-dynamo.Zara1709 (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you can or cannot allow? Actually, deciding upon article scope isn't the prerogative of a single individual. But reverting back to the previous version is fine. It's something I probably would have done had I realized the scope of that editor's changes (even though they appear to be somewhat in line with a developing consensus on the talk page -- and I stress "consensus") -- before seeing your shut-down of the article and your massive changes against consensus. And, once again, I don't have a version I'm "pushing", and however you want to brand it, you can't make it so. There are others who find my input useful and valid. I simply want the lead paragraph and the article scope to reflect the true nature of the controversy. But this is all subject matter for the article talk space -- not here, Zara. We have an admin presiding over the article at the moment, so there's no need to keep running to AN/I whenever something doesn't sit well with you. Try some patience. Stay and work through it collegially and collaboratively. Or, as you keep threatening to do, edit somewhere else. Because ongoing disruption and article lockdown are neither constructive nor acceptable. deeceevoice (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault that Dbachmann, Moreschi and Woland aren't actively participating in the discussion at the moment. If they would show up rather soon, that would make things a lot easier. However, you can't call it consensus if you propose a reversion which they wouldn't agree on, which is obvious from the discussion archives. Zara1709 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nor is it the fault of anyone still working diligently on the article, trying to come to some sort of agreement. You can't tell me that Bachmann and Moreschi are unaware of the discussion. You referred to the talk page "archives" -- and for a reason. They haven't been participating. I visited Woland's talk page and specifically asked for his input. Collaborate with the rest of the editors to discuss the issues around article scope and other matters or don't. Participate or don't. Absentee participation, or collective participation by one-person proxy -- such as what you're attempting -- runs counter to the spirit of the project and, ultimately, is unhelpful. Again, this is not about what you "cannot allow." The discussion continues. deeceevoice (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I can collaborate. Simply state sources in support of the sentence: "The current debate over the ethnic identity of dynastic Egypt has its roots in contradictory reports and perceptions accumulated since Classical times." Simply explain why you don't want Afrocentrism to be mentioned in the lead. And we were making some process in the discussion, which was only interrupted by you breaking wp:BRD with the last revert. Zara1709 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's good to know, Zara, because it's not a skill you've been strong on lately -- at least not at the above-referenced article. Please. Take it to the article talk space, Zara. As it is, I've had to refer the participating editors here so that they can see for themselves what your approach to the article is. For my money, there's something exceedingly wrong with that picture. deeceevoice (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced information

Can someone please take a look at Slavica Ecclestone article. A bunch of an. users and (I suspect) sockpuppets keep removing information backed up by several sources and replacing them with information backed up with one source only. This is obviously a case of nationalist POV and I can't find this person alone. Surtsicna (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You've gone into WP:3RR territory there, but I'll accept that the exclusion clause for vandalism applies here. They have been warned to take it to the talk page; slap a final/only warning and if they don't pay attention then someone can block them. Until then I'll hang around the page history with rollback at the ready. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Screw that actually; avast, there be socks on the high seas! User:LukaKarabatic and User:MiraSkoric appear to be quacking from the same hymn sheet; support immediate block for socking, POV-pushing and edit warring. Ironholds (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

..And screw that, I'm an idiot. multiple sources seem to confirm she was born in the now-Croation region. Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Long term copyright infringement redux

• Mgreason (talk · contribs)

There is an active effort to address extensive copyright infringement, possibly inadvertent, by this user. Infringement ranges from minimal—a few sentences or phrases—to major, with whole sections copied from coyrighted sources. Several editors have responded to my last call for assistance (and hooray for them), but this is a big job and more would be very welcome. The user's self-noted major contributions are listed in my sandbox. Articles that have been checked have been struck out. Articles where infringement (even minimal) has been confirmed are checked off. Generally, we've been cleaning slight or piecemeal infringement (sometimes I've simply added quotation marks to small matters, in compliance with WP:NFC) and listing major problems at WP:CP with the standard copyvio template. I've found it useful to compare against the listed sources, as this contributor often does cite the sources that are being infringed upon, although sometimes not at the point where the text is copied. If you have time, please consider helping out. Even if you only address an article or two, you could shave days off of the completion of this project. Thanks for any assistance. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

How come this guy hasn't been blocked? We've given long-term blocks for less serious copyright infringement than this. Blueboy96 15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No kidding. I doubt you'll find enough help to actually gain ground if Mgreason is still allowed to edit. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a concern. :/ As I work more through the backlog here, I have wondered if blocking immediately would have been the best option even if the contributor is well-meaning, since well-meant infringement is still infringement. My thought had been to monitor future contributions and, now that the contributor has been explicitly warned of the potential of block, block as necessary if infringement resumes. As you can see from his talk page, I've made an effort to address these concerns with him, but he doesn't actually discuss much, so I'm unsure if the situation is any more clear for him now than it was after his first copyright notice in 2007. He does seem to have understood GFDL issues, though, after our conversation, based on this. As focused as I've been on cleaning past issues, I have not yet checked to see if the problem is ongoing, which might easily decide the matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I'd more than welcome other input on whether blocking is appropriate. This is a tedious and time-consuming process, and I must admit to being discouraged by it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

(un-indent) I'd support indef block, as he doesn't seem to be heeding the warnings on his talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, well meaning or not, until the editor can display a proper understanding of copyright its in the best interests of the project that he not edit. Shell ^babelfish 16:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Support an indefinite block, for the reasons I stated earlier. I have to admit, I was pretty close to blocking him myself earlier. Seems to me that a long-term block for copyright infringement is SOP in my book. Blueboy96 20:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Mgreason indef. Some of the copyvio's are quite recent, made after being warned by Moonriddengirl. See for example Episcopal Diocese of Florida. No objection to an unblock if the user ever gets a clue. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out and weighing in. I'll talk to the contributor to see if perhaps I can help him learn to properly utilize external sources in his userspace with the thought that after demonstrating understanding of that, an unblock may eventually be appropriate. Meanwhile, back to the backlog (well, after looking at today at WP:CP). Not marking this resolved, though, since there are still quite a few articles that haven't been checked out...and a few new ones, it seems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

10 reliable sources vs. "no way that is true"

Resolved

 – A content dispute, now resolved.

In the article Marysville, Victoria there are a couple of users trying to remove the well sourced report that the town has unfortunately been completely destroyed in fire, because they believe that journalists are exaggerating. This is not a content dispute - we have a few Wikipedia users on one side (I already gave one warning for blatant content removal) and reports of the several well established and reliable media like The Australian, Sky News Australia, the Geelong Advertiser, Brisbane Times, The Courier-Mail, ABC News etc. on the other side. Please remind these people of WP:SOURCE and WP:OR policies.--Avala (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Although we should give credence to sources, we should also be aware that newspapers may exaggerate these things. The present wording, "According to reports almost all buildings were destroyed." seems good. If all buildings were destroyed, then the word almost could be removed. But the current text seems to agree with a neutral reading of the sources provided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is the latest video as the last resort for those who don't believe the written word. Anyway I tried rewording. Hopefully no one removes it now.--Avala (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From personal reports from friends, apparently it really is that bad, entire small towns are gone. The press actually don't have to exaggerate on this story - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Avala, the problem was your insistence that the town be labeled entirely in the past tense; no one is questioning that most of the town was destroyed by the bushfire. We had this argument with Greensburg, Kansas as well as with New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where in both cases groups of users insisted on beginning the article with "... was a city ...". Towns continue to exist as legal entities even if every structure is destroyed; please see the talk page, where we are explaining it to you. Your rewording is an improvement. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it is a tragedy. Now the sources actually cited were sufficient close to the topic at hand that they either hedged their own wording ("Virtually the entire township of Marysville in Victoria has been destroyed by bushfires.") or simply used direct quotes from distressed residents. The present revision of the article has the "thou doth protest too much" syndrome: [70]. In terms of encyclopedic accuracy, I would much rather see a well-sourced "almost" than a poorly-sourced "entirely". It comes across as POV. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENT provides some useful advice on dealing with immediate events like this. As this is essentially a content dispute, it should continue at Talk:Marysville, Victoria rather than here. Also, vandalism templates are not helpful during content disputes.[71] Euryalus (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I really like the "I already gave one warning for blatant content removal" bit. What that means is "I just gratuitously {{uw-delete2}}-templated the user talk page of an experienced editor (and administrator) who has never made a bad faith edit." If there is any event in this relatively benign content dispute that warrants further scrutiny by administrators, that was it. Hesperian 01:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just templating an experienced editor is not an issue that requires administrators' intervention unless the user continues this disruptive behavior. As Euryalus said, this is an issue that needs to be settled at relevant talk pages. ^LeaveSleaves 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Hesperian 02:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course I am going to issue a warning to someone who made an edit that consisted only of removing 10 references and nothing else. If he wants to be constructive he would reword, try to do something. Removing references is none of the actions I would ever consider benign. It doesn't mean I was looking to get them blocked or anything, I just wanted their attention so they would know that they made a mistake and hopefully in the future they will make constructive rather than destructive edits. Anyway the latest edit seems to be fine with everyone so I guess you can check this as solved.--Avala (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dr robert bell

Resolved

 – copyright problem addressed; other issues exist, but not such that admin intervention seems currently necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone could have a look at this page, it's at least a partial copyvio of [72] and [73] and the way it was created with a maintenance tag from September makes me think that it's either copied from somewhere or a repost of something deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I'll see what I can puzzle out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the copyvio and listed it at WP:CP, with notice to the contributor. My guess at this point is that the contributor was using another page as the template for this article and didn't notice or understand the maintenance tag markings at the top, not that it's a repost. I see nothing in the logs of this or related names, and the source shows that the template used is "infobox premier." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lyrics

Long discussion, now summarized by the table at the bottom... please provide feedback

Background reading: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs

After a long discussion last year into the appropriateness of fight songs, there was a consensus (not that one was needed) that lyrics should be removed from articles about fight songs, and that many such articles should be merged and/or redirected into the article about the sports team or the school. After User:NJGW and I tried to apply that consensus (see some of my contribs) a vast array of other editors have come back and restored the lyrics (which in many cases are copyvios) and/or unredirected articles which contained very little text and whose subjects were already discussed elsewhere.

Since there's already a consensus on this, I'd rather not reopen a centralized discussion or try to create a notability guideline for such a small category of articles, but I am at a loss as to how to continue. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus in the link you provided was to remove the lyrics from and to merge/redirect non-notable articles about college fight songs. Standard notablility guidelines apply, as do standard consensus-seeking procedures. The issue I had was that dozens of such articles were merged/redirected with no discussion or consideration of each article's notablity. Some of them should be merged, some should not. There's no reason to rush through and get rid of all of them without going through the usual procedures: tag, discuss, arrive at consensus.

Also, a vital part of the "merge" process is to add the info from the removed article to the parent article. NJGW only deleted/redirected, so that the removed info disappeared from wikipedia. Zeng8r (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware that NJGW has not deleted any articles. He just redirected them; others may have unredirected, but that's part of WP:BRD. As you say, there was no blanket consensus that fight songs should not have their own articles.

"Consensus-seeking procedures" don't seem to apply to removing lyrics, though. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the wording and conclusion of the "consensus" obtained on the lyrics. I also disagree on the interpretation seemingly applied by WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS which does not forbid the use of full public domain lyrics as long as it is not the sole component of an article (to avoid it becoming a "primary source" as stated in WP:Lyrics). It also contradicts an established consensus on lyric inclusion (see below). However, concluding the general discussion with such narrow interpretation of both that discussion (where 5 out of 12 editors, not including myself, stated that lyrics were justified in some conditions) and the no lyrics policy is unfortunate because article quality suffers in several cases. For example, in the article Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech, which has passed WP:GA with the lyrics included, the lyrics are wikilinked to provide additional information to their meaning and are essential for the subsequent discussion of the alternative lyrics and the historic development of the song. These sections become meaningless in this article without inclusion of the lyrics and, in my opinion, their inclusion does not violate a wikipedia policy in word nor spirt (see WP:LYRICS). Therefore, I see this as "consensus" decision as an unfortunate example of unnecessary rule creep. The purpose of wikipedia policy to not write articles solely consisting of lyrics is to avoid creating a primary source and prevent copyright violations. This is obviously not a problem with articles such as Rambling Wreck, Give My Regards to Davy, War Eagle, and others and the "consensus" policy trying to be enforced is unnecessarily and unfortunately hurting article quality in a well established category of articles.

The issue of public domain lyrics is also spoken to by the Song Wikiproject according to Wikipedia:SONG#LYRICS which very clearly does not prohibit the inclusion of full public domain lyrics in articles. This speaks to lyrics in hundreds of well established articles and categories such as The Star-Spangled Banner, Amhrán na bhFiann, God Save the Queen, America the Beautiful, O Holy Night, Deck the Halls, 99 Bottles of Beer, My Old Kentucky Home, Rock-a-bye Baby, Hush, Little Baby, Three Blind Mice, etc., etc. in well established categories as Category:Christian hymns, Category:National anthems, Category: American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, etc., etc. This includes Featured Articles such as Old Dan Tucker and Dixie. A blanket ban on lyrics regardless of context, such as was the conclusion that was reached in the discussion for fight songs, seems to be treading close to violating WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". The "consensus" on the fight song lyrics reached by the limited number of editors (7) contradicts established lyric inclusion "consensus" (as well as FA reviewed articles) and therefore appears to be faulty and should at least be reexamined per WP:CCC (with better promotion of the discussion than had previously occurred to editors with interest in song related articles). I also believe any discussion on lyric inclusion should take place at the level of the Song Wikiproject as opposed to the limited subcategorization of fight songs. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting and redirecting/merging are pretty much the same thing if no text is actually moved over to the main article. Poof! - it's gone. However, I agree that the cited discussion above is enough justification for removing lyrics without rediscussing it on every individual article, especially since that's general wikipolicy anyway. Zeng8r (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, not the same thing. The content is still in the history of the redirect and can be reviewed and added to the target if anyone cares to do so. Guy (Help!) 12:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The casual user/editor has no idea how to do that. All they know is, they search for "Dear Old Nebraska U" (for example) and end up on the main article for the University of Nebraska, which doesn't mention the fight song at all. Zeng8r (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, the articles in question should go through AfD with a "Merge and Delete" request unless they meet the criteria for a speedy delete. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Mergers should not be taken to AFD. AFD is for when one is requesting that an administrator hit a delete button. The "D" in "AFD" stands for "deletion". Do not nominate articles at AFD if an administrator removing the content and the entire edit history is not what you want. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I merged information which was not already at the target. In the cases where there were only a line or two ("X's fight song is Y. It was written by Z") the information was usually already at the target page. For notable fight songs (ie Anchors Away) I only removed the lyrics. Zeng8r has not looked at my edits closely. NJGW (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Anchors Aweigh should not have lyrics removed because, although it is used by the US Naval Academy as a fight song, it is the anthem of the United States Navy and does not necessarily fall under the auspices of the discussion about college fight songs. See WP:SONG#LYRICS.

  As a further note, many of these articles would fail wp:NOTE and wp:V, making them AFD candidates (the short ones probably Speedy candidates). In my mind I was saving them from this fate by putting the information in a safe place. NJGW (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It is fine to make an AfD (or a speedy for that matter) a merge and delete which would have preserved the information just as efficiently. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Merge and delete is not a viable outcome for GFDL reasons. Merge and redirect, or just delete. If any content is being kept, then the history needs to be kept. J Milburn (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, if something is voted on as a "Merge and Delete", it generally commonly understood to mean that it is just changed to a redirect and the information is moved to the article. (in essence what NJGW was doing, just with a vote) Perhaps I should have just said "Merge", as most AfD voters commonly take "Merge and Delete" to mean just "Merge" unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. (See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for further clarification) You could obviously be more clear in the wording if you wish, but we are talking about the same thing. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • It is not generally understood in that way at all. The general understanding is the one given to you by J Milburn. If your understanding is what you state, then your underestanding is wrong. Merger and deletion are incompatible. Merger is a form of keep, and can be enacted by any editor, even one without an account, as all editors have the tools to perform an article merger. Deletion is only actionable by people that have access to administrator tools.

          The procedures described at Wikipedia:Merge and delete are complex, easy to get wrong, and for truly exceptional cases only. (That page doesn't even describe the requirement of §4(j) of the GFDL for such procedures — an important requirement that is often not met.) The main case in which they were employed, transwikification, stopped needing them years ago, when Special:Import was invented. I've performed these procedures myself, following every part of the GFDL to the furthest extent practicable, and they are not simple. (See some of the transwikification contributions of User:Uncle G's 'bot across several projects.) Anyone reading Wikipedia:Merge and delete would not get them completely right. You would not get them right. Most editors wouldn't. (Many people performing transwikifications the old way didn't, and I had to use the 'bot to fix the results on several occasions.)

          For all common purposes, including AFD discussions, merger and deletion are, and should be considered, mutually incompatible. Uncle G (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pasting here my recent addition to the centralized discussion:
After a decision was reached here, I attempted to apply it to several articles and was met with strong opposition in several instances. Schools with only a few supporters on Wikipedia saw the fight song lyrics removed and not added back in. Other fight song articles had the lyrics added back in immediately and repeatedly. Editors felt that this centralized discussion carried little or no weight. Until all articles on this subject are treated alike, I think trying to enforce the removal of lyrics is unfair.

Here's one example of the kind of response I received when attempting to follow what was decided: "Fight On" →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Some users are going to have very strong opinions on this matter, what with the emotional attachments many have to their alma maters. With all the potential 3RR warnings and mediations and bannings that are sure to result over this, is it a fight worth fighting, really? Zeng8r (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. That is why I reversed myself on all articles where I removed lyrics. →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion of the "consensus" was seems faulty in light of WP:SONG#LYRICS and at best over interprets wikipedia policy. As noted above, there are whole categories of songs (e.g. Category:National anthems, Category:Anthems, Category:Christian hymns, Category:American folk songs, Category:Nursery rhymes, and on and on) where articles on songs with full pd lyrics have maintained WP:SILENCE for a long time and have been favorably reviewed (even FA). Certainly there are articles that are better than others as far as have content that relies to heavily on the song lyrics, but clearly no ban on public domain lyrics within an article, and at best it is WP:CREEP, at worst it seems to violate WP:CON: " 'Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". CrazyPaco (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are lyrics in those other articles, they should be removed as well. In any case, the lyrics in the fight song articles are mostly copyrighted. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. Only lyrics that are not in the public domain should be removed. Articles that consist only of lyrics should be nominated for WP:AFD for lack of context according to WP:LYRICS. The vast majority of articles about songs in the public domain include their lyrics, including those that have passed WP:FA. Your interpretation goes against the prevailing consensus established at WP:SONG#LYRICS, WP:LYRICS, and by WP:FA review of articles like Dixie. Again, no ban exists on public domain lyrics in those articles as long as those articles do not solely consisting of those lyrics thus risking WP:Primary sources. If you want to change that consensus on policy, it seems that you would need to work to change the wording at WP:NOT#LYRICS and WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS to explicitly state your current opinion. Again, "Consensus' among a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Af far as fight songs violating copyright, that may or may not be true as many fight songs were written in the late 19th or early 20th century. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you all mean well, but I disagree with the original logic/solution of the, frankly, so-called "consensus" that didn't do a good job of informing those of us who've edited multiple articles on fight songs. With that said, it would behoove anyone acting on that policy position to be more careful: if you're going to impose an 11-person "consensus", you better be willing to do the work and not only do half (i.e. deleting only, and not transcribing something that's very clearly PD). Simply going in and deleting lyrics without making at least an attempt to move them (if they can be) isn't the right way to do things. --Bobak (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion here I think it should be obvious to anyone that there is clearly no "consensus" on removing public domain lyrics from articles. To those of you still trying to maintain that farce, please stop removing lyrics from articles on those grounds. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus exists as policy at wp:NOT#LYRICS, not the centralized discussion. It reads "The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain, but even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary about them." The centralized discussion merely agreed with the policy. WP is not a lyrics database for fight songs, or any songs. NJGW (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand if you have a long song with dozens of lines it might make sense to link to WikiSource, but when you have a fight song with 4 lines it makes no sense to do that. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No such consensus exists at WP:NOT#LYRICS for the removal of PD lyrics from articles if it is not the sole content of that article. Please stop inferring what is not there. This policy is further clarified at WP:Lyrics and backed by the consensus consensus drawn at WP:SONG#LYRICS and by song articles that include PD lyrics which have passed WP:FA. CrazyPaco (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

From wp:Lyrics: "A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact." Which of these articles "have an analytical framework" or discuss the "cultural impact"? wp:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos states: "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." Just like you originally ignored my actual edits, you are now ignoring what you are quoting. NJGW (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is what WP:LYRICS states, you continually seem to miss this part or read something into it that is not there: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context." Many of articles in which you have removed the lyrics provide plenty of commentary on the lyrics and cultural impact. Those include articles such as Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech that has passed WP:GA review and never should have had the lyrics removed. Some of the articles you have rightfully questioned like Dear Old Nebraska U. There is no criteria for how well or thorough these descriptions must be, but the later clearly fails to provide sufficient context and with that I agree with you. Remember an article does not have to be FA (like Dixie) to exist or contain public domain lyrics. All that is stated is that if the article consists solely of lyrics and doesn't provide context it may be nominated for AFD, it actually says nothing of wholesale removal of all lyrics regardless of how they are presented in the article, unless they are not in the public domain. You cannot inject policy where none exists that ignores previously existing consensus at WP:SONG#LYRICS that is demonstrated in FA and GA peer reviews as noted above. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is that you are misunderstanding the terms "commentary on" and "cultural impact". Dixie (song) has both. Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech has neither. NJGW (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I (obviously) thoroughly disagree with that assessment, and likewise, your opinion certainly doesn't appear to be the consensus (per, among other things, GA assessment and WP:SONG). CrazyPaco (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please give us an example of the "commentary on" the lyrics or "cultural impact" discussed at Ramblin' Wreck for which the lyrics are needed. Also, reread wp:SONG - "It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point." You may have missed that sentence, but it's there. NJGW (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided examples regarding the Rambing Wreck article in my comments above. The quote you are referring to at wp:songs is for cases of using copyrighted lyrics according to WP:fair use. For anyone that hasn't done so already, please feel free to view and consider the following policy/guidelines in their entirety at WP:LYRICS and WP:SONG#LYRICS. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• You've provided false and unrelated examples (saying that the lyrics are used to show historical progression when actually the progression is from before the song's lyrics were written), but you haven't said anything about "commentary on" the lyrics themselves or the "cultural impact" of these lyrics. Again, please give examples.
• Your interpretation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Lyrics and music videos is a personal one. Not only have you repeatedly called it a policy/guideline when it clearly is not, but the sentence also does not indicate a strict application to copyrighted lyrics as you suggest. You are grasping at straws, as your blanket statement on notability below proves. NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Of course my interpretation is a personal one, as is yours. However, it seems that my interpretation is shared by the majority of editors that have worked on public domain songs within the Song Wikiproject. There is no point going back and forth on this. You have made your case, I have made mine. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not equate a statement of fact ("X sentence is found at Y") with an opinion ("X sentence only applies to Z"). I have stated facts and asked questions, you not provided answers (or answered other questions) and given personal opinions. NJGW (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Fight Songs and College Football my opinion, based on prior discussions at WP:CFB--Linking a "fight song" to the college "football" team is inappropriate. The fight songs typically apply to not only all sports but to the student body of the school in question. While the fight songs are typically a part of the "pagentry" of college football, the football team does not play the song--the band does. But also college choirs sing the songs regularly. Therefore, I see no real reason to have any special reference or exclusivity to college football and school fight songs. So from there, it goes outside the realm of my enthusiasm in Wikipedia and becomes an issue of songs, lyrics, etc. That's not to say that a fight song couldn't be notable or even worthwhile to have the lyrics in the encyclopedia, but I would take the stance that not all college fight songs are notable (especially when one consideres that many smaller college have "taken" the fight song of a larger school and simply changed a few of the lyrics).--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note what occurred at the university article of my alma mater, so that this process can be made better. I get involved when I see an article I wrote blanked without my involvement or discussion, and then part of that article dumped into the main university article without a merge discussion or any attempt to work the text in. That was a bad move, and it upset me. It gave me little respect for the "centralized discussion" editors. Their consensus, as I understand it, was "there a place for fight song information in the article about the institution" not that all fight songs must immediately be merged without discussion with relevant parties. The lyrics are a separate issue from the "redirecting" of fight song articles. I don't believe "centralized discussion" has any authority to bypass traditional discuss and merge routes.--Patrick «» 06:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since "a vast array of other editors" are opposing User:Stifle's actions, there is obviously no consensus for them. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "a vast array of other editors," and besides I assume they are mostly the alums that had the songs on their watchlists. If that is the only piece of evidence you are considering, I suggest you look over the table CrazyPaco and I created at the bottom of this section, in which I claim that the consensus is evident at other places/projects, by folks who do not have those pages watchlisted.

Are these even notable?

Fight song lists 3 notable college fight songs. Is that really all? Perhaps it's time to delete any that do not claim notability. Also, that article is a mess... it has no refs, uses lots of peacock terms ("steeped in tradition"), and is mostly a list of American college fight songs (and some Alma Maters). It could use a section about Hakas and other types of fight songs. NJGW (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would dare say that there are more than three notable fight songs. I am not sure exactly how many are notable, and many of the current articles likely are not notable, but I don't think I am venturing too far out on a limb guessing that it is more than three. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Most fight songs from universities competing in major NCAA Division 1 athletics could be notable, as long as they are not derived from other school's fight songs. I would define major universities as most of the school in conferences comprising the BCS and the Ivy League, with some other exceptions. The fight songs from these schools are often heard on TV, radio, movies, used in video games, and find their way into other promotions and products. Most have had multiple examples of professional recordings made of them in the past, and today, almost all are available for purchase either on CDs or for download and as ring tones and have shelf lives well outlasting the typical top 50 pop song. Compilations of college songs sheet music is continually being produced. Many of the lyrics have themselves become slogans and greetings for alumni of the schools absent of the accompanying music. Keep in mind WP:LOCALFAME as well. I agree that many of the articles need to add additional material regarding their notability, use, and history. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The essay you cite does not mean local fame=notability, only that local things CAN be notable. Saying that "most" of the songs from some of the schools "could be notable" is a non-argument, and the existence of recordings are not proof of notability (we don't have an article about every single Brittney Spears song for a reason). Instead of blanket arguments against anything I might possibly say, how about considering the fact that most of these song articles are 2-3 lines with no sources (and no sources available)? How about considering how derivative most of the songs are? How about considering improving the crappy Fight song article, which would actually help people see the cultural significance of these songs, rather than fighting tooth and nail for articles which would clearly fail speedy deletion requests? NJGW (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I cited many reasons why they could be notable. I do not support unsourced articles or blanket notability. However, size of the song does not denote notability (e.g. Happy Birthday to You). I also disagree with your assertion that most of the songs are derivative. It is your right to nominate individual song articles for AFD if that is your opinion, however, I believe more research into the topic of collegiate culture, fight songs, and songs in general would be beneficial. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment summary for involved editors

• Summary comment as framed below, point by point (move up here to keep the bottom clear per request of NJGW...I put these mostly because I haven't commented on all of the arguments, just lyrics).
  1) I do not feel all fight songs are notable. Songs from major universities (Ivy League) as well as those competing in major NCAA Division 1 athletics (e.g. BCS) do have the potential to be notable based on the pervasiveness of their songs throughout popular culture. I do not support blanket notability for fight songs.
  2) Merger is not deletion and is acceptable. However, editors considering merger, or reversing a merger, should remember WP:GOODFAITH. Editors considering a merger of an article that has not previously worked on the article should considering first applying a merge tag in order to work cooperatively, and garner consensus with, the authors of the existing articles. Editors should not be surprised by merger reversals if they have not attempted to obtain a consensus on the notability, importance, or quality of an article.
  3) I feel it was obvious that the centralized discussion did not reach a consensus on Lyrics. Lyrics discussion should not have occurred at the level of the specialized category of fight songs, but rather at a broader level of those editors who work on all types of song-related articles. I feel this contradicts the primary conclusion of the general discussion: "Fight songs do not need special guidelines". I believe the consensus obtained on the points specific to fight songs, other than lyrics, are valid.
  4) This argument is now split into five parts, not all of which seem to be separate arguments but rather a series of supporting quotes from wikipedia policy/guidelines for the original argument. My feeling on complete public domain lyric removal has been made clear above. I do not disagree with the final point about turning Wikipedia into a lyrics database. However, there is obviously a disconnect over what an "analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact" means. CrazyPaco (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Paco, please move this comment to the section above. You are simply restating the points from the table above and your points from the sections above. I had hoped this space would be used by uninvolved editors, not by us to keep going in circles. NJGW (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Summing up

Here are the main arguments as summarized by NJGW and CrazyPaco. Please, can some third parties comment on what they think?

For removing lyrics and merging short articles	Against removing lyrics and merging short articles
Many of the songs' articles are too short and unreferenced to be considered notable enough to remain on their own.	Their notability is inherent in the fact that they are the fight songs of notable schools, and that they have been recorded and performed many times.
The non-lyrics information has not been lost, only merged. In many cases the small amount of information in the individual song articles was already duplicated at the main College or team athletics' article.	The information has effectively been deleted.
There was a consensus built at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Fight songs that "Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles. If free, they should be in Wikisource; if copyrighted, they should not be included"	The centralized discussion decision stating "Fight song lyrics do not belong in Wikipedia articles" institutes a prohibition on any use of lyrics in one subcategory of song. It contradicts a wider overall consensus for song articles as well as the primary conclusion of the general discussion: "Fight songs do not need special guidelines".
There is consensus outside of the Centralized discussion for the removal of whole-song public domain lyrics to WikiSource except where the lyrics are used to demonstrate textual analysis or to illustrate points related to cultural significance. This is demonstrated by the following passages in the relevant Policy, Essay, and Wikiproject:	No consensus, policy, or mandate exists to force removal of full public domain lyrics as long as they are not the sole component of the article. Consensus on this issue has already been demonstrated in three existing policies and guidelines (see below) as well as the successful GA and FA review of several articles containing full public domain lyrics. Therefore, inclusion lyrics in fight song articles, as well as inclusion of full public domain lyrics in Wikipedia articles, is acceptable, as long as it is not the sole or primary component of the article thus rendering it as a primary source.
"Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them."	WP:NOT#LYRICS: "Lyrics databases. Most song lyrics published after 1923 are protected by copyright. The lyrics of traditional songs may be in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source texts generally belong on WikiSource. Excerpts of lyrics may be used within an article for the purpose of direct commentary upon them."
"A Wikipedia article on lyrics or poetry should have an analytical framework that describes the song and its cultural impact."	WP:LYRICS: "In addition to the main point of not violating copyright, do not write an article that consists only of lyrics. This would be considered a primary source. It may if it is GFDL-compatible free content, be transwikied to Wikisource, but it could also be speedy deleted by an admin for lack of context."
"It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. Lyrics and music videos that are in the public domain may be entered at Wikisource."	WP:SONG#LYRICS "Do not include the song's entire lyrics or embed the song's music video in the article unless you are certain they are in the public domain. Most lyrics and music videos will be copyrighted so we cannot legally put them in an article. It may be acceptable to use small portions of a song's lyrics or music video in the main body to illustrate a point. Lyrics and music videos that are in the public domain may be entered at Wikisource. Links to external websites that provide lyrics and music videos belong in the "External links" section."
Simply placing lyrics in an article with no textual analysis of the lyrics turns Wikipedia into a lyrics database. This is specifically ruled out by WP:NOT	Used correctly, inclusion of public domain lyrics can enhance the understanding of the topic, is convenient to the reader, and therefore may improve article quality. Placement of public domain lyrics on Wikisource is encouraged, although not necessary, and should not come at the exclusion of those lyrics on Wikipedia when they enhance article quality.

• Shouldn't this be conducted someplace else? Maybe an RfC on WT:NFC or one of the college or songs wikiprojects? Protonk (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Slbs

Resolved

 – And the link turns red..._Gb^T/c 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a joke or hoax article that merits a speedy. --Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. _Gb^T/c 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A proposal to remedy en:wp's chronic incivility

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki

Incivility is standard on en:wp. Actual personal attacks are routine and expected. This drives people away from the wiki and leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other. This is despite Wikipedia:No personal attacks supposedly being hard policy.

Precis: the AC to warn that it expects better behaviour, and then to start knocking heads together. Likely to start with the admins, as the ones most expected to set a good example - hence me posting this here. Those of us with the magic bit must lift our game. Or else.

Commentary at the above link (or even just "great idea!" or "terrible idea!" will likely be read by the AC.

Let's make this encyclopedia project suck less to be involved with. - David Gerard (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• (splutter) "... leaves a hard core of borderline sociopaths as the only people willing to put up with each other"? And that doesn't breach WP:NPA? Dear pot, meet kettle. Black Kite 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't think there's any problem at all, by all means say that - David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't say there wasn't a problem. I just thought it was incredibly ironic that a posting about how to counter personal attacks on Wikipedia was presented in the form of what was effectively a personal attack against most editors... Black Kite 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Hey, that would include myself! I consciously try not to snap at people, and occasionally succeed ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Firstly, I agree that it was completely uncalled for to call editors who stick to policy "sociopaths" - and re: the proposal, I don't understand it. Is your proposal to have the well-known policy announced and enforced? Because I believe that that is already the procedure here. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

So far it isn't being enforced and it isn't reining in gross incivility. See proposal - David Gerard (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Re: the proposal, I don't understand it" "See proposal" - how about we all agree that you're great at wisecracks, and stop the so-called witty repartees. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope you could assume some ongoing good faith - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope you'd demonstrate some, rather than resorting to silly "See proposal"-type responses! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why you are making a proposal that the community enforce its own policies. Suggest that they could be more rigorously adhered to, by all means, but it is not a proposal (novel idea, new solution etc.) to "begin" blocking people for incivility, is it? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is for the arbcom to notify that it's taking a special interest in enforcing it - David Gerard (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You mean like if the British government were to announce that it was particularly interested in prosecuting drug-users, drug crime would be significantly reduced? Just no, I don't feel that this idea will remotely affect the level of incivility. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hence the other bit, actually doing so - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really face continuing this much further, it being very dull indeed, but your "proposal" - to announce and enforce well-known policy - will make no impact, and since it is neither new, innovative, original or novel, it scarcely constitutes a proposal IMO. Thanks for taking my criticisms on board so well! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag, what in your eyes will affect the level of incivility here? It is a growing problem. Kingturtle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the inciwikity is actually caused, IMHO, by WP policies aimed at preventing use of WP as a "community." It is easier far to lose one's temper at a person one knows nothing really about than to lose one's temper at a person one has met. Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My sense is that the civility of Wikipedia's editors, like the quality of its articles, ollows a normal distribution. Yes, Wikipedia is home to some real bullies, and an even greater number of irritating but not quite abusive editors. It is also home to some real decent, generous, helpful and receptive people, and a larger number of people who are often abrupt or slow to get someone else's point, yet nevertheless relativly easy to work with. And the vast majority fall in between. I think as long as we try to make this th encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we just have to accept the fact that anyone includes some jerks just as it includes some gems. perhaps we notice the bullies more because there is an understandable tendency to make things "better." I think we should resist that and be more accepting of the good and the bad. I am speaking generically of course. I am all for solving problems if they are more narrowly and specifically defined than "incivility." For example I do not think our active community of editos comes close to reflecting the diversity of our readership and this means that some bodies of knowledge and access to views get left out. Any way to remedy this,l I would be all for. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

the way to remedy it is to remove the bullies, especially the ones who bully new editors, and who attack improvable articles instead of helping the authors improve them. We notice the bullies more because even a small number of them can do incredible damage. DGG (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle asked the 10 Million dollar question - what has caused the increase in incivility? I've been considering this for a while, and my OR is this. Wikipedia has risen to the top of sooo many search results - Wikipedia has gathered soooo much press - in short, Wikipedia has become the "in" thing. Hence, it draws a much younger audience. A younger audience will often display less civility because (if I remember when I was young) - you feel that nothing can hurt you or touch you. Soooo you don't feel you have to bother with being civil. All IMHO — Ched (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I know that's not exactly what Kingturtle asked, but I did want to get that thought in. I don't know how to fix it, wish I did. — Ched (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The typical time of participation in Wikipedia seems to be 12-18 months, i.e. comparable to participation times in MMORPGs. Elonka did a paper on this, I don't have a link. So if you've been here more than a year or two, you're an old-timer and a freak. There's all sorts of weirdnesses about Wikipedia culture - David Gerard (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If we simply enforce the rules we already have on a regular basis, or at the very least not chastise those who do, then the problem would be a fraction of what it is now. Chillum(old timer/freak) 00:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Largely it's not enforced against admins. This leads to problems for all admins in attempting to enforce it, including those that aren't abusive - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Ched makes an excellent point. The drop in median age of editors is one issue (if we could documentt that, but it sounds right). I think there is a related issue: the number of editors has increased exponentially and regardless of their age, too many of them do not understand our core policies, which evolved to dampen conflicts. Remember, for those of use who have been around a long time, there was a year or two where the community grew at about the same rate as core polciies were being revised and strengthened ... policies grew as we did, and vice versa. That is no longer the case. But the fact is Wikipedia has ben an uncivil place since i first got here, filled with trolls and bullies. The problem in my mind has not gotten worse, there are just more bullies and creeps because there is more of everybody here. I Do think that the recent elevation of WP:DE helps when it coms to fighting bullies and trolls. Otherwise, we just have to keep socializing newbis. There used to be a welcome team, I guess they are no longer active. many newbies come and are never welcomed, never directed to the five pillars or core policies ... the amazing thing is how many of them turn out to be good editors! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the village that has become a city, and while Stadtluft macht man frei most cities existed at the edge of sudden urban riot. (I forget how many riots in Imperial Rome led to the Emperor quaking behind his Praetorian Guards.) Only in recent years have cities become a relatively healthy & safe place to live. My point is that while a certain amount of incivility/personal risk is inevitable, we are not doomed to an intolerable amount; we can improve the social climate, if we have the imagination & insight to figure out how. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

French people - Need page history restored.

Resolved

Someone archived the talk page of French people by moving the talk page to a subpage, which erased the history of said talk page. "Current" (2009) discussions were also removed in the process, I can put those back in, but I can't restore the page history, so I could use admin assistance here. Equendil Talk 22:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the history back and manually archived everything to Archive 3, feel free to manually move back out any threads you feel are still salient. –xeno (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just realized WP:ARCHIVE actually suggests moving pages for archiving as one possible method, seems highly unorthodox to me though. Anyway, thanks for the help, I'll reinsert a couple sections. Equendil Talk 22:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - I tried my best to write a strong discouragement of that, but someone rewrote it to its current version. See Help talk:Archiving a talk page#Proposal to discourage pagemove archiving for more on this. –xeno (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I see ... you can count me as being stronly against page moves for archiving. Thanks again. Equendil Talk 23:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you beat me to User:Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso's talk page hehe. Equendil Talk 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast copyedit required Giles Hattersley

Can someone check this stub for grammar and spelling etc - ASAP for obvious reasons. Thanks. Giano (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gave it a look, should be passable now. Does anyone know what this business about false claims in the apparently non-existent article is all about? Skomorokh 16:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is why I have written the page, 1000s must have looked for it today. It is important that we defend ourselves from these allegations when ver possible. Today's was totally spurious. Wikipedia's PR, or rather lack of PR, is more than worrying. Giano (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: "15:48, 2009 February 8 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs) deleted "Giles Hattersley" ‎ (pending further investigation)" [74] — Gavia immer (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just great, now Mr. Hattersley can point to the deletion log and claim that Jimbo's deletion of the article is some kind of acknowledgment that the article contained exactly what Mr. Hattersley previously claimed it contained (before it existed). — CharlotteWebb 20:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that the article DID exist, but was oversighted (leaving no trace), perhaps seconds or minutes after Hattersley's article hit the press? Or that Hattersley is talking about an article on another Wikimedia property than the English Wikipedia? Just an extremely "assume good faith" concept from a banned user here (check with Alison). Delete this question, if you must. But, I think the idea is worth considering. -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Related conversation at User talk:Jimbo Wales, but right now, no one can find any trace of the supposed claims on Wikipedia-en.--Tznkai (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well...I'll say it now. It was not wise to create an article which had never existed purely because a person complained (falsely) that a wikipedia article on him contained errors. It was also unwise to delete this article, turning a minor complaint from a minor journalist into an issue that "looks" bad. Regardless of what we tell ourselves, we can't prove positive to the public that no article containing falsehoods ever existed. All that is publicly available is the deletion log. A deletion log which notes permanently that Jimbo deleted it--a triviality that I'm sure the British press will ignore. We need to get out of the business of self-referentiality and into the business of maintaining an encyclopedia. The next time that a blog in the guardian says, without evidence, that we have done something untoward, let's not trip over ourselves to look as guilty as possible. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blog in the Guardian? Which blog in the Guardian is this? DuncanHill (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the Sunday times. He used to work for the guardian. Protonk (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he did. The Guardian has had stories about him, but he seems only to have worked for the Sunday Times and Arena. DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Resolved

 – This isn't a pressing matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could tell me how tall the average administrator really is? Please let me know?? South Bay (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

About the same as Napoleon. DuncanHill (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was 1.69 m. MER-C 05:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm trying to see how to alter that to get a standard distribution. My initial thought was to take a bunch of rands and average them to get a close to standard distribution. But the rand template automatically picks the same random number whenever it is called on a single page load so that doesn't work. Incidentally, actual admin issue, there's a typo on the template documentation. "Invokation" should be "invocation." Hmm, looking at it the typo occurs repeatedly. Is invokation a different (correct) term? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Josh, please don't go messing with rands, we get enough trouble with them already! DuncanHill (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So how would you objectively choose a random a number? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The same user had asked, on Feb 1, what the average age of an admin is. The answer to both questions is as follows: The admins are ALL of average height, weight, and age. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Got my curiousity aroused -- "invokation" is the Swedish spelling -- for some reason it is a real common English misspelling as well. The "k" use is found a lot -- WP has an article on Autarky though "autarchy" is more logical on its etymology. As for height, Abe Lincoln was asked by a child whether his legs were extraordinarily long. Reply: They are exactly the right length to reach the ground. Collect (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When userfying, Leave a redirect behind, and then delete it

Just a note that it's probably a best practice when userfy'ing something to "Leave a redirect behind" and then delete it afterwards, rather than suppressing the redirect. Otherwise, it will be impossible for a future individual to find out just where the userfy'd article has gone. –xeno (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See bugzilla:16950. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. While we wait for that to be fixed, we should follow the above suggested practice. –xeno (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just put a link to the userfied page on the user's user page? – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't help. The problem is that if someone comes along one day looking for the article they wouldn't know where it went because moving without leaving a redirect presently leaves no trace other than the move log. –xeno (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Eyes needed on DRV please

I believe the issues surrounding TurnKey Linux have been mentioned here (maybe on ANI) previously; there's another DRV underway (the first one was closed when the nominator and page creator, one of the developers of the software in question, withdrew it), that could definitely use some more eyes. I'm going to try and not go back there, because now I'm just flat out pissed off after having my integrity impugned by said page creator, but I can't guarantee it as the responses to anyone who feels the deletion was in order have been maddening at best and if I'm attacked further I'm likely to respond. (It takes a lot to piss me off. Insulting my integrity is a guaranteed escalation to DEFCON 1.) Additional opinions on the whole matter would be greatly appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copyright infringement

Resolved  – User blocked. MBisanz talk 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.'
Josh Woolstenhulme (talk · contribs) has repeatedly uploaded copyrighted media (specifically, photographs of firearms) from various, non-free internet sources, first claiming to be the author and copyright holder of the images (by applying the "Own work" template, and then after several warnings, and deletions, hiding behind the Fair Use rationale), without any sort of explanation. He was warned several times, directed to the appropriate Wiki-guides, and has now resumed uploading the same images. Tagging each image with the speedy deletion process is too tedious for me to do it all over again. Could someone please restrict at least this user's upload priveledges until he/she is in compliance with copyright statutes? One admin has already performed a mass-delete of the violating images. Just browsing through this user's contib list reveals the offending images. Koalorka (talk) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) i have no comments on the merits of your accusations against the newbie, but want to point out that you were formally warned by an admin for biting this specific newbie for calling him a moron, among other things. maybe if you were nicer to him, he might be better inclined to listen. but in general, calling people zipperheads and morons and calling specific editors ugly and trolls is probably not the best approach to collaborative editing. i mean really. zipperheads? were you trying to get banned? Theserialcomma (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Looks like Koalorka has plaxico'd himself. I have no comment on the Josh Woolstenhulme situ but I would support a formal warning to Koalorka to treat users with a bit more respect. Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Precious deflection Serialcoma. Feel free to initiate a case against me, but this isn't the place to vent your editing frustrations. Weren't you accused of hounding Nuke4Tots a while back? Why are you monitoring my contributions and history? I don't believe we've ever interacted. But that's immaterial. I'm glad some competent admins went ahead and removed the images. I've spoken to an author of several of the photos stolen from IMFDB.org and he was just about ready to have his legal staff intervene. We live in very litigious times. Ayway, good work. Koalorka (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ive been monitoring Josh Woolstenhulme's edits ever since you called him a moron and he then said he was going to quit wikipedia because of you. i watchlisted his talkpage after sending him the message a few days ago "hey, you don't have to quit wikipedia because of this." so for future reference, when you make a report on ANI or AN, you open yourself up to scrutiny also. if you call people racist names again, i am pretty certain you will be blocked. so do not do that. this is not the place for that type of talk. p.s. i am pretty sure you just made a legal threat by proxy, but i am not sure how that is dealt with. since the images are gone, i suppose the threat has been retracted anyway. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) If we can get back to the situation at hand, Josh Wool... continues to place images he has stolen on various firearms pages. A recent picture depicts a photograph he made of a picture in the book and is represented as his own work. Theserialcomma is not really playing fair, here, and has been hounding myself, Koalorka, and DanMP5 because we are all editing the Glock pistol article and disagree with him. Please, can an admin step in and take care of the root problem here, the uploading of stolen pictures on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Josh has been continuing in uploading copyrighted images and now has been placing public domain tags on them. Most of the latest batch have come from the copyrighted book Combat Arms, but still have public domain tags, when it is clear that he is not the author of the book, or the photographer who took the original picture, and thus he has no legal right to upload these, as he doesn't hold the copyright. In another case, I tracked an image to the website for the game Mare Nostrum, another copyrighted work to which he holds no copyright. Something needs to be done about this, despite warnings, and deletion of the copyright violations, he continues to upload images that he has no legal hold on.--LWF (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC) The accused editor has continued uploading stolen imagery, his latest here. Koalorka (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC) I have blocked this user indefinitely after debating whether to give him a 72-hour block with a "one more copyvio and it's indef" warning. However, the clincher was that he actually claimed to be the author of that book. Misappropriation of copyright is beyond unacceptable. Blueboy96 14:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

No action taken by TravisTX, admin?

Resolved

 – User:Jpaoewfjewf blocked due to suspicious noises. —Travis^talk 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ASandbox&diff=269569344&oldid=269569039 Mudlogger56's edit: "Go and get stood on ya queer bastard" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpaoewfjewf (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because it's a sandbox? –xeno (talk) 17:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. See if I get banned anytime soon. Jpaoewfjewf (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

We don't block people for a single edit such as that, especially since it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular, as well as being in the sandbox. Not to mention that mudloggers only other edit was a positive one--Jac16888^Talk 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may have been aimed at the user who kept adding over 500K of nonsense to the sandbox, who I eventually had to block. Even in that case, I'm not inclined to do anything about it at this time. If you feel differently, the correct noticeboard is over there. —Travis^talk 18:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I'm not aware of anyone ever being sanctioned for not taking action on something. — CharlotteWebb 18:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...the more I look at Jpaoewfjewf (talk · contribs), the more I think it is the same person as the one I blocked, Tiorutoiwerueoi (talk · contribs). Jpaoewfjewf was created one minute after Tiorutoiwerueoi was blocked. They both added a ton of garbage to their usertalk pages (and elsewhere, in Tiorutoiwerueoi's case). Both usernames are seemingly random collections of letters. And, Jpaoewfjewf's entire editing history is in response to a remark allegedly made toward Tiorutoiwerueoi. —Travis^talk 18:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask that a close eye is kept on User:Mudlogger56 from now on? I don't think that such a first edit bodes at all well, whether in the sandbox or anywhere else. DuncanHill (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you from doing exactly that, and reporting anything actionable. We can all keep eyes on folks as often as we feel like reloading Special:contributions. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom Lennox

This doesn't belong at AIV because it's not persistent, and it doesn't belong at Wikiquette, since it's way past that. Tom Lennox has gotten absurd with personal attacks and some minor vandalism. Here are some diffs: [75] [76] [77] [78]

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you check his talk page note that he received a block about an hour ago.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well crap, all that typing for nothing. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on User:Fragments of Jade

I propose a community ban on Fragments of Jade (talk · contribs) and any sock thereof per the extreme disruption and sockpuppetry—see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239/Archive, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkuser abuse, and related other sockpuppet cases. Editor is engaging in abusive sockpuppetry to harass and attack other users as well as to blatantly disrupt the encyclopedia. Thank you, MuZemike 08:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban, although it seems a tad pointless; an indef block, and any socks that turn up will be indefed as socks. I guess this is just making a more formal "whatever you turn up as you are not welcome" statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironholds (talk • contribs)
• Yep, what Ironholds said. I've only seen one of the socks, but that was sufficient for me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. MER-C 12:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yeh. No-brainer. //roux   12:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This degree of abusive sockpuppetry on an ongoing basis is unacceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Community ban, as I understand it, gives priority to requests for checkuser for suspected socks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Harassment and disruption, nothing productive here. Dayewalker (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Hit list" accusation from User:CadenS

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved. while keeping a list of user edits and actions may not be the most tactful way to observe edits, no policy is being broken. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Please see this thread on my user talk page: User_talk:SheffieldSteel#Hit_List.3F. CadenS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) In a nutshell, CadenS accuses me of maintaining a hit list of editors. I have a user sub-page containing a list of editors I have been monitoring. In the absence of any kind of "editor watchlist" provided by the mediawiki software, this is the best way I could think of to conveniently check the contribs of multiple editors. This page was not linked from anywhere on-wiki until CadenS found it, presumably from looking at my contribs. He has posted to the talk page of every editor on the list, and has demanded that I resign the tools. I can see several possible solutions to this. I'd like feedback from other editors about which might be best. Keep the page as-is, ignoring CadenS. Add a disclaimer to the top of the page, saying e.g. "This page is a list of editors this admin is monitoring, and is not intended as an attack on them or any kind of public statement about their actions." (done) Remove all annotations and comments from the list. Move the list onto a piece of paper, delete the page, and type in the user names by hand in future. Open a user conduct RfC on myself with a view to resigning the tools. (I am not interested in speculating as to CadenS's motivation for this, and I'd appreciate it if the discussion wasn't distracted by that.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I'd consider the source, personally. Take option 2, let CadenS calm down from this latest outburst, move on. //roux   14:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Defintly 3 at least. You can't list perceived greviences on a user subpage unless dipute resolution is forthcoming. Not sure if there is anything against a list of names, but if you removed annotations and put a describer at the top, that should be fine. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 6. Use the Bookmarks/Favourites list of your browser to keep this off wiki. –xeno (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Or copy the list into Microsoft Word or something similar. That would preserve the hyperlinks and comments while keeping it off wiki. Hermione1980 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Keep as is (option 1). CadenS is under community editing restrictions. Someone, somewhere has to keep a note about that and actually monitor them, or the restrictions are meaningless. Personally, I keep my editors' watchlist as a mix of watching their talk pages and paper notes - your way is better and more transparent, not less, and all editors listed have a reason to be on the page. It's not like Kelly Martin's B Ark list of many moons ago. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Option Z: Move it to a google doc, forget about the accusations. Still copy/paste, still accessible anywhere. No drama. If you have editors you keep tabs on for various reasons, it is almost always better to leave it off wiki (IMO). that doesn't mean leaving it on-wiki is wrong, just that it evidently causes people to endure cruel, cruel butthurt. The wiki pays a price in openness, but we can blame those who would complain about lists more than the list makers. Protonk (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Support any move off-wiki. An RfC isn't necessary. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not an admin, hell - I'm not even sure I'm past my trial period yet, but given that it would be easy to just pick File..Save as, and save an html file to your HD - (or any of the other options above), I don't see what the problem is. I would personally probably go with the advise of the other admins just to save the drama - but you don't have to justify yourself to anyone. — Ched (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Comment. Shef your inappropriate list is linked on-wiki, that's how I found it. In the toolbox on my page there is "what links here", and when you click on that you will see that my name is linked to what I see as your personal hit list (of editors you clearly dislike). I contacted the others on your list because they had a right to know what you are doing. I do not believe your claims of "monitoring". Your annotations and comments from the list reveal that you have what looks exactly as a personal hit list and nothing more. As I've said before, do the right thing and resign. My other suggestion to you is to open a user conduct RfC on yourself. However, I'd prefer you resign instead. Caden S (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I'm sure you would. You might imagine that we would take your recommendations with more than a grain of salt. Can you explain what policies/guidelines Shef is violating that warrant desysopping? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I find this to be utter nonsense; there's nothing there that isn't already available on-wiki, it's just collected in one place for administrative convenience. I'm sure I'm on many lists, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest. Some mature perspective please. --Rodhullandemu 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)Comment - no misuse of the admin tools, no incivility, no breach of any applicable guideline or policy (as far as I am aware) - in fact, nothing more than a page of notes. An RfC would be unwarranted and a waste of everyone's time, and calls for resignation are, frankly, ridiculous. And people wonder why WP:AN and the associated boards get clogged up with dramahz...GbT/c 21:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Option -C- relabel the list "My bestest friends" and get on with life. Seriously, keep it as is. How else should you keep track of folks you want to keep an eye on? To me, its a bit like telling a parole officer not to write down your address. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Thank you everyone for your input. On reflection, I have decided to move the page into "admin-only space" in the interest of avoiding further drahma. This reduces the convenience to me - and the transparency to non-admin users - but on balance that seems to be the best course of action. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC) The best course of action is for you to give up the tools. You've abused your postion as a admin with your "list". Moving your hit list to admin-only space does not solve a thing. You're still going to be stalking our every move, watching and waiting and adding other innocent editors to that list. That's wrong. Caden S (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) This is not stalking, unless I am a banana. Disruption, however, is blockable. --Rodhullandemu 22:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC) As I told Caden last night on his page, I see nothing wrong with this. I've kept a similar page on some editors in my user space before. When you have to fill out a 3RR or edit war report on someone, it takes quite a while to dig up all the diffs. As it is now, when I find someone I'm pretty sure isn't going to be following policy, I just sandbox the diffs until I need them. If I don't need them, even better. Caden, you just seem upset that you've been blocked in the past and other editors remember that. If you go back to being productive, nothing will ever come of this. It's not a big deal. Dayewalker (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC) I actually have a problem with this. Why exactly are you letting a disruptive user bully you? Add to it that this won't end the drama, he'll just think you're stalking him behind the 'admin curtain'. I think he should suck it up, do his time (oh the pain of not being able to edit about 1% of wikipedia) , and stop the nonsense. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Guyonthesubway, please try to remain civil and avoid making personal attacks such as calling me a "bully", a "distruptive user" or referring to my objection to the list as "nonsense". This type of behavior is not helpful. Also, please do not make allegations of me accusing Shef of stalking me. I'm doing no such thing and if you read my talk page you will see that this issue over the list is over. Furthermore, your remarks that I "should suck it up, do his time" etc is again incivil and not helpful to this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CadenS (talk • contribs) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Please remember to warn yourself on civility for the various comments you've made regarding 'hit lists' 'vandalism', and for not assuming good faith on the whole matter of the list. thanks. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Once again, I ask that you remain civil. You are assuming bad faith again in regards to my objection to the list. Please read my explanation above in reply to Shef or see the reply I gave to him on my talk page. ← Guyonthesubway, drop the stick and back away from the horse. CadenS, behave yourself. In other words, drop it, both of you. //roux   23:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing autoblocks after unblocking users

Yesterday, I know of at least two admins who unblocked people and forgot to remove the autoblock. I have seen this happen many times in the past as well. Would anyone object if I add a note to MediaWiki:Unblocked to remind people to remove the autoblock? I was thinking of something like:

If you just unblocked a user account, please remember to remove any autoblocks in place on the account.

Thoughts? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Might also want to add "by searching looking through Special:IPBlocklist for the username". –xeno (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, searching by the username doesn't return the autoblocks. I looked at the Special page, and found about 500 blocks ago this block and autoblock:

1. 19:18, 9 February 2009, PMDrive1061 (Talk | contribs) blocked #1311350 (expires 19:18, 10 February 2009, account creation blocked) (Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "BigNigs". The reason given for BigNigs's block is: "{{UsernameHardBlocked}}".)
2. 19:16, 9 February 2009, PMDrive1061 (Talk | contribs) blocked BigNigs (Talk | contribs) (no expiry set, account creation blocked) ({{UsernameHardBlocked}})

But the search result [79] contains only the original block, not the autoblock. So a searching admin can't even find the autoblock to remove. I certainly don't know of a way of finding the autoblocks to remove other than asking the affected user to trigger them and report which autoblocks are in the way. GRBerry 16:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant the old-fashioned Ctrl-F method. –xeno (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This tool can be used to find any autoblocks still in place against any given user. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, that tool should be linked in most of the unblock templates out there....hmmm....one sec. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a note to {{Request accepted}}. Will at least make a handy link to click there once the unblock template has been tl'd. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear

Resolved

 – Speedied under A7 and A3. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This "article" doesn't seem to fulfil the Wikipedia standards.--Túrelio (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Deletion process for information on how to properly bring articles such as these to administrator attention. –xeno (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's gone. Horologium (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for splitting hairs, but I don't think A7 can be applied to a phrase... A3 didn't apply either. G4 I think would've been best (prior AFD). –xeno (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a G4 candidate, as the old (deleted) article had nothing to do with the new article. It was a vanity article, complete with a photo of the "co-founder of the "Oh Dear" catchphrase and subculture." It was nonsense, something made up one day in school. I don't have a problem if you want to undelete it and send it to AFD. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I'm fine with an IAR deletion, but I guess what I was driving as is that it's better to mark it as such rather than shoehorn it into a non-fitting criteria. –xeno (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• N.B. I re-created it as a wikt redirect. –xeno (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hard telling what the original article was claiming about authorship, as it was deleted; but unless the "co-founder" was a picture of someone like ZaSu Pitts or Olive Oyl, it has to be considered bogus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Block notices on IP user pages

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

It is frustrating not being able to get an answer.

• No reply to my post at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, it just got delete by a bot with a notice in the edit summary of who placed the block,
• no reply to my post at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User_page_block_notices
• No reply at the admin page User_talk:J.delanoy#Blocking_IP_users

But it does at least seem that admin J.delanoy has changed his practice as is now posting notices on IP users pages were in the past he had not, and least the pages I checked some of which I am posting here

• User talk:85.102.249.255 this page still does not have any notice about the block that was added
• User talk:71.43.248.99 - this user was blocked by an different admin but no notice was or is posted.

So is it policy to only slectively post blocking notices on IP user pages? Sounds like a very bad policy to me as another user coming in on that same IP would have no idea when the block will expire and may have no idea what or where a block log is. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The second one did have a notice, look up the page a little bit. For my part, I usually leave a block notice except in the case where it's an IP hopping vandal who has a brand new fresh red linked talk page and I've duck blocked before they got any warnings. In this case it's always a rather short block. –xeno (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If a new user comes in on that IP, they will still see the standard block message when they try to edit, which will give details of the block, its expiry, and the blocking admin. (Mediawiki:Blockedtext). Black Kite 22:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about the displayed block notice when attempting to edit. But it still does not address the policy question. Dbiel ^(Talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK#Explanation on blocking - blocked templates are not mandatory. —Travis^talk 22:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you actually reviewed my contributions for more than 2 or 3 days, you will see that I almost always leave a block notice. I have not changed my practice at all in the last few days. Please do at least a tiny bit of research before making accusations. Why is that so hard? Also, take note of the lengths of many of the blocks for which I did not leave a notice. In general, if I implement a block longer than a couple of weeks, I do not leave a block notice, since there is no reasonable chance that someone would visit their user talk page a month later before attempting to edit a page and finding out that they were blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's still important to leave a block notice even for long blocks as it's an easily viewable record of the history of the user/IP. –xeno (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this, and try to practice it 100% of the time myself. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That may have been because your policy question was unclear. I couldn't tell from your post what your question was about, just that it had something to do with J. Delanoy and blocks and that you had asked it elsewhere. Might I suggest that you provide a simple, concise explanation of the problem, your question, and the desired solution so that those of us reading these threads can contribute productively. As for the seemingly implied question, I feel strongly that block messages are entirely optional. Where there is a long term editor being blocked or where an IP editor is being blocked for something other than vandalism, a block message should be written out (not templated). Otherwise, one may leave a templated message or no message at all. The information in the block log as well as the existence of the block itself should be abundantly clear to someone trying to edit when it shows up in the edit window. For longer term blocks (e.g. schoolblocks or blocks where the IP owner is expected to change), a block message is obviously very helpful. But in the case where the message itself is going to be read by the person receiving the block, it is a lot of duplicated work. Either way you look at it, no one is mandated to do it and no one will be "punished" for failing to do it. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if the question was unclear but it thought "So is it policy to only slectively post blocking notices on IP user pages? Sounds like a very bad policy to me as another user coming in on that same IP would have no idea when the block will expire and may have no idea what or where a block log is." was fairly clear, but apparently it was not. And as for J.delanoy I did review numerous entries, scanned the contribution list and edit summaries which for Feburary 10 included numerious "You have been temporarily blocked." and previous were no where near as apparent and the pages I did check where 3rd and 4th level warnings were posted I did check the block log and user talk page and more often than not there was no current block notice even though the block log showed a recent block and as noted above it involved more than just the one admin. But again, the basic question was what was the policy, which has now been answered. So thank you, even though I do disagree with the answer, it is just one more case I happen to disagree with Wikipedia policy as I believe only registered users should be able to edit. But lets not drift off on a tangent, as what I think and believe is not important. So thanks for clarifying the policy. So I guess the easy way for me is simply to stop bothering to revert vandalism and leave it to someone else as it is taking up way too much of my time anyway. Will just cut down my 3,500+ watch list to those article as personally consider important. By the way, it is frustrating when an admin ingores the post you make on his talk page, which is made clear by the fact that he has replied to a later post by another user, and had made countless edits hours after the post was made. Dbiel ^(Talk) 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Boils down to: it's not as convenient for non-admins to check the block log history, so we should leave the notices for transparency and ease-of-reference. Jmho. –xeno (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

So very true. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Help getting article posted.

Resolved

 – No admin action required.

This is all so confusing. Why can't I get my article uploaded. Can someone please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayyes1985 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Without a specific problem description I can only makes guesses as to what trouble you are having. To create an article you must be logged in and have an account which is not blocked. To create an article you need to go to the Search Box and type in the article name you'd like to create, then click the edit button and create the page as if you were editing an existing one, once you are finished with your first edit click the "save" button, or you can click the "preview" button to see how the page will look. —Nn123645 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: admin-only pages

There's a constant tension between maintaining open discourse on Wikipedia and avoiding leaking information to malicious parties. WP:DENY prevents us from publishing information about vandals, but as admins cycle in and out over the years, many a vandal is forgotten and gains another chance to wreak havoc. Many oversight issues have to be handled with great care to avoid further publicizing the private information involved. In particular, I think it would be useful if more of the sequestered discourse of ArbCom on their mailing list were visible to all admins. Copyrighted material that may still be under discussion also needs to be quickly removed from public view.

I don't believe there's currently technical support to restrict pages so that only admins can read them; I propose that such a feature be implemented and some pages created for some of the types of information I describe above. An alternative would be a private wiki configured so only admins can read it (an existing setting I believe), with all En admins automatically made admins on it.

The most obvious objection to this is that not all admins can be trusted all the time and they might leak information as a means of vengeance, or if they think they're just doing someone a friendly favor. I don't know, what do you guys think? Dcoetzee 01:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see two sides to this. One is that it makes it easier to share information that would make admins' life easier, while not enabling the trolls. The other is that a private wiki/admin-only pages makes it a lot easier for people to say "zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11". I don't know, personally, which concern outweighs the other — just giving my two cents. Hermione1980 01:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

zOMG teh cabal iz taking over!!!1!!11
I see how an admins only forum would be useful in some cases but I think propensity for overuse is just to great as compared to benefits. If DENY gets in your way, ignore it. There is nothing terrible about discussing a vandal on wiki, frivolous discussion of them should be stifled but it does not do that much harm if we do: most vandals worth discussing are already so dedicated a little recognition wont make much difference. Cases so sensitive that they must be discussed in private should be referred to the ArbCom, silent discussion of users for no pressing reason, to which I imagine what ever was set up would devolve to quickly, is a bad thing. The admins IRC has already proven itself a failure. Icewedge (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

-admins and the satellite channels is where all the Grawp fighting goes on without any problems. BJ^Talk 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't really think of many uses for this TBH. The type of vandals that last for years are the type that WP:DENY isn't going to make a significant impact on, but there's only a handful of them (see also WP:LTA). The vast majority of wiki-related things discussed in the admins IRC channel are much better discussed in a real-time forum like IRC than in wiki-style discussions as they're either trivial things that need only minutes of discussion, or they're things that need urgent attention. If we did do this for some reason though, it would have to be a separate wiki, as MediaWiki isn't designed for per-page read restrictions. Mr.Z-man 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Z-man here... I don't see much use for it and see the negatives outweighing the positives.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 03:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Zomg the cabal is taking over. Can't imagine the use for this. Isn't there already an admin only IRC channel or something? Protonk (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Past experience suggests that this would play really badly with the community, especially those whose agitation it is most designed to avoid, and it would undoubtedly be compromised anyway, as the admin IRC channel is. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This already exists. It's called deletion.--Patton^t/c 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't even support it as an admin. Whether it is the cabal spider hole or the executive lounge, until the need is shown for it, it should not occur. Would we desysop people for telling "secrets"?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I can think of something. It relates to a problem which may, or may not exist - a way for vandals to cause trouble it might be hard to detect initially. I don't know whether it is minor or potentially serious. How should this be raised? Ben MacDui 20:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin only page isn't needed, as much of the corporate memory is not invested in admins but all the contributors to the noticeboards and requests pages. There will be editors who have the knowledge that it is proposed may be kept in an admin only page who will therefore not know that it is being called upon. I would also suggest that having another perception of the difference of value between having and not having the sysop flag is not worth any potential gain for the existence of such a thing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DENY is an essay. I wish people would realise that, and stop treating it as though it's some sort of policy, which we all must follow. Majorly talk 00:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My question above is perfectly serious. There are several editors, including admins, aware of the problem but my take on the discussion is that no-one wants to raise it at Village Pump or here in case doing so might have significant consequences. Discreet suggestions here and there seem to have achieved nothing. It is my suspicion there is no way to address the issue directly. Ben MacDui 12:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for it justified in anything Wikipedia uses to describe administration duties. That it is suggested in seriousness suggests to me that some WP:Administrators are very confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm asking a question that I notice nobody seems to be able to answer. Ben MacDui 15:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest emailing the person(s) you feel are in the best place to handle...whatever it is you're talking about—a trusted admin, ArbCom, or whoever. I understand why you can't be more explicit, as that would defeat the purpose of your question, but without more information, it's hard to answer. Hermione1980 16:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I outdented my response, above, Ben MacDui, to make certain you understood I was replying to the primary post, not yours. E-mail me, don't describe your issue, it doesn't matter, but I'll tell you the name of an admin you can e-mail to ask a question, who can maybe steer you in the correct direction. --KP Botany (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm only responding because the question was asked. And I do understand that 1600 admins to 8 million editors forces a certain unity (even if sometimes contentious) simply out of the sheer numbers. But there are email and IRC options, and with an already prevailing paranoia of admin cabalism, I'd seriously question the value of an admin only page. All IMHO — Ched (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for attempting to help. Of course, if I knew who to email I would do so. It would need to be someone who was motivated to help, had sufficient wiki-experience to know whether the problem was real or not, understood something about anti-vandal fighting, had some serious technical knowledge and the clout to get something done. I'm not familiar with IRC and nearly fell asleep reading about it. Perhaps that's the answer, although I am not sure what the difference is in principle between an "admin-only page" and an "admin-only IRC". I have no interest in cabals but this is a conundrum it seems hard to nail. Ben MacDui 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you talk to one of the admins who supported you when you had you RfA? Maybe in an IM program? or email? — Ched (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have fired off an email or two. Ben MacDui 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I object to this for the same reasons that many people object to the admin-only IRC channel. The entire point of something being on-wiki is having it accessible to the public. Jtrainor (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the duh comment. And, of course, the first thing human beings do when given the least bit of power is abuse it to the utmost. Mop and bucket--the latter for me to puke in. --KP Botany (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement at William Henry Harrison

Resolved

Hello. Half of the last paragraph of William Henry Harrison (version I'm looking at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Henry_Harrison&oldid=269924932) is copied verbatim from http://www.ultimatemontana.com/sectionpages/Section8/fortharrison.html, which according to archive.org has been around since 2004. The material in the article was added sometime after September 2008. Usually, I use {{copyviocore}}, but I think it's a bit overkill in this case. Can an administrator take a look and delete the infringing material from the article's history? Thanks, BuddingJournalist 03:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I nuked all but the first sentence of the paragraph which was lifted from the Montana Army National Guard site. The citation links to the page in question, so that should be good enough. Horologium (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem uploading

I am trying to upload a .wav file but it is extremely difficult for me, please help me out??? South Bay (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

.WAV files are not one of the files Wikipedia accepts, that is why you are having problems. From looking at the upload page, the only audio fiel allowed is .OGG. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 11, 2009 @ 07:02

In the future, questions like this are much better suited for the Help desk. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You can use BonkEnc to convert the .wav to .ogg for upload.

Lex Luthor (no, not the one in the comics)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive512 § The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia

I have just received this email:

[redacted] by //roux   03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

-- This e-mail was sent by user "An Argento Fan" on the English Wikipedia to user "DuncanHill". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

Make of it what you will. DuncanHill (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in contact with Manhattan Samurai also. I don't get the impression at the moment that he's terribly sorry. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Return? Hell no. MS proved several times he was only here to stir up drama; give him an inch and he'll take a mile. Also redacted the email text (feel free to put in a summary) per som ArbCom decision for which I do not have the link. //roux   03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A bloody ridiculous ArbCom decision if you ask me, but I won't revert you over it! DuncanHill (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I told him that if he wants to come back he should spend some time editing another project productively. I'd be perfectly willing to let him back in say three months if he doesn't sock during that time and is a productive editor elsewhere. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DuncanHill (or anyone else with email contact), could you ask this user for their permission to quote this email on Wikipedia so that it can be unredacted, in order that the community can evaluate it. They dont need to give their permission; if they dont, it can be summarised. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC) p.s. a Committee member also received an email from "An Argento Fan" (possibly the same email) but if the community wants to evaluate it, that would at least save the committee some time digging up the history, and we can go back to drinking pina colada on the beach.

He gave me permission to publish. I'm not sure that's sufficient since the email was sent to Duncan not me (am I just being anal?). If it is then I'll just stick it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a notice on both my talk page and my userpage saying that I may publish any emails sent to me through Wikipedia. I am reluctant to reply to him directly, as I am not entirely confident about letting him have my email addy. DuncanHill (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a summary:

He wants to apologize to the community for "Lex Luthor" malarky, and to open talks with the community to apologize for other things. He says he has been "an intellectual pretzel", sometimes making excellent contributions and sometimes being disruptive. He wishes to make amends. He proposes starting a discussion, with the aim of returning as User:BillDeanCarter.

It's hard to summarize something very short. DuncanHill (talk) 04:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He sent me the full text with permission to put it here. So:

I would like to apologize to the community for the "Lex Luthor" disruption and to open up talks with the community to apologize for my other actions. I have been an intellectual pretzel, making excellent contributions on the one hand and then being quite disruptive on the other hand. I would like to make amends for that. I propose that we begin a discussion and that we discuss my return under the account User:BillDeanCarter.

For what it is worth, I think he is sincere. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is he BillDeanCarter though? DuncanHill (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. He claims that a checkuser will confirm that he is. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why he chose me to email - I do have a kindly face apparently, but am not particularly familiar with him or the problem. DuncanHill (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this, but I'm no neutral party. If this is even considered, then he'd have to agree to a total topic ban, indefinite, to anything related to Gonzo Journalism OR Alan Cabal. It's pretty clear to me from his many comments on the topic that there's a conflict of interest there. I have a lengthier hypothesis on the matter, but won't go into excess detail without being asked, but the phrase 'Gonzo Journalism from the inside out' would be the nut of it. ThuranX (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question asked me to make the following statement. I presume in response to Thuranx's comment here:

"I would like to extend my apologies to ThuranX and Arcayne for the funny business I performed last month and any trouble it may have caused. I was just being silly and did not intend to be malicious in any way. My actions were simply to annoy in a playful way rather than damage your reputations."

Make of that what you will. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support a return (as the neutral outsider that I am) on the conditions that:

• He edits productively on another WM project for 3 months
• CU on that project confirms he has not socked
• He is topicbanned from Gonzo Journalism and the related articles

• Any violation of the third condition will result in him being reblocked; obviously if he screws up the first two he wont be unblocked in the first place.

Any takers? Ironholds (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - nope. It all looks rather self-serving to me; I suspect that the whack-a-mole has been nuking his socks faster than he can establish them and he's getting put out. He can come back in a year, maybe. //roux   12:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I supported the last unblock and even tried to work w/ him over email to craft an appropriate condition for unblock. A lot of people spent time and effort to help him work on "his" article (almost always a mistake, IMO...but one I made as well). When he went back to trolling/etc. he brushed aside all of that work and spoiled any good faith that may have been built up. Protonk (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose We've given him two second chances, he failed both of them and the 2nd time declared a personal vendetta against wikipedia..in this case third time's not the charm. Elbutler (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose anybody who considers themselves the LexLuthor of wikipedia need not be here. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Class project? Heads up.

Hey, I need to log off but I just came across this - User talk:Pmedward - looks like a class project. I'm sure there's a page with guidance about these somewhere, but I can't find it. Could someone welcome them and keep an eye out for any problems? Thanks. the wub "?!" 20:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Wikipedia:School and university projects? Pagrashtak 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the one. Cheers. the wub "?!" 11:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing & returning admins

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish#Returning RTVs which is the best place for it, as the policy that governs the practice. rootology (C)(T) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

Say an admin resigns, then invokes RTV and has his talk pages deleted. Later he returns, and becomes an admin again (no RfA). Should his talk pages be restored? DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RTV is dissolved when an editor returns. Their talk pages should be restored. It doesn't matter what user rights they have.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

+1. New name or same name? –xeno (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Same name. DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Same answer though, was just curious. Should be restored. –xeno (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How could the admin get their `bit back if they used a different name? This is starting to sound like a plot hook in a conspiracy cabalist's pamphlet! --Kralizec! (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess by confidential email to a bureaucrat. It happens. Mostly so they can come back without the harassment that led them to vanish. Just look at how many admins have WP:Requests for adminship/TheirUserName as a redlink. –xeno (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some who have vanished and then returned under a different name, than got adminhood restored. I believe I am right in saying that blocks have been offered to editors connecting the old and the new usernames. There are of course also admins who have never had an RfA under any username, so just because you can't find an RfA doesn't mean they have vanished and returned. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

PS: I posted a similar inquiry at Wikipedia_talk:Right_to_vanish#Returning_RTVs. This should be covered in that guideline.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

An admin who vanishes and then returns should not be automatically made an admin again. The vanishing erases the editor's relationship to the community, and that's what adminship is (supposedly) all about, the trust of the community. A vanished and returned editor needs to re-establish that trust, and stand for RfA again, IMHO. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the answers, I have asked the one I noticed to restore his talk page history. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Which he has done. Thanks to all. DuncanHill (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In the past people have been restored under a new name and had their old talk page left deleted for privacy reasons. This has worked out well. Chillum 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a very thing to do for people making a clean break from their previous history. User:TomDickHarry, active on that name from 2005-Dec 2007, for example, but that started over as User:HarryDickTom in January 2008 with no connection between them, that would be totally fine. I think the concern here was with admins getting that done, and the usual side note of "new" names mysteriously getting +sysop. rootology (C)(T) 01:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That is what I meant, an admin comes back under a new name without a link to his old account. It has happened in the past a few times and it has turned out well. It is done as a method of protecting privacy. Chillum 02:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I don't like it. It makes it impossible for the community to know how/why a person came to be an admin, and it makes it impossible for any meaningful examination of their admin actions. Now, if someone came back under a new name, edited well under it, and then went for an RfA I think that would be OK. DuncanHill (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes. This is obviously the only practical way of doing it. I know I'd be beyond suspicious if I encountered a user who had been given the admin bit without any apparent history of how that came about, expecially if the grant were recent. As for RtV itself, I'm pretty sure that it was always supposed to be one-way, and that coming back under a new account wasn't optional (at least not with any pretences of picking up where one left off). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter why someone is an admin, it only matter what type of admin they are. It is no big deal you know. You can just look at their admin log and see what kind of an admin they are. A person is still the same person when they change their name. I don't think anyone personally knows every admin, we all have to deal with them at face value from time to time.

I will say that when you do see an admin whose past has been erased ask yourself why. Is it because they are trying to hide a dirty secret and the crats are helping them? Or is it because they were attacked and harassed by other users until they needed to improve their privacy? I would err on the side of caution and draw as little attention to such a person as possible assuming they are improving their privacy for a good reason. Chillum 02:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If it really is no big deal (which I do not for one moment believe is the actual case), then why not go for a new RfA under the new name? No-one actually needs admin tools in order to be an effective and good contributor, it's just that the community needs some people to have them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:33, 11 February 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.

Possible compromised account

Just goes to show what happens when you let your password into the wrong hands. User:Obliviatrix started out with some good edits, but today it degenerated into pure-D vandalism up to and including a threat of more vandalism on my talk page. What to do about this? I blocked the account and protected the talk page based on that last message to me. If it's compromised, I don't want to lock out a good user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would unblock the talk page but WP:GOTHACKED covers this pretty well. If we think the account is compromised there really is no way for us to tell that the owner is back in control without a committed identity. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Or a previously certified PGP key. -- Avi (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Or other means such as checkuser, or someone else who knows the owner and can vouch for the identity. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best if the user just starts over. –xeno (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I unlocked the talk page last night, but no answer. I'll keep an eye on it and see what he does. Glad to see there's a template for such accounts; I'd never seen that one before! Thanks for the assist, gang. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The usual...

Resolved

Rocks on the road (talk · contribs). Several redirects to be deleted and salted. Doulos Christos (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure I got them all earlier. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ dedicated to making a happy man very old 17:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

N00b got pwned

See log summary. Didn't y'all learn from the last time this happened? 129.49.7.125 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The account was editing from a now-blocked proxy, says Alison. Bencherlite^Talk 01:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If that was why it was blocked then the log should say so. DuncanHill (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bencherlite may not have been clear. The IP behind the named account blocked above was the proxy server, not the IP noted above. Protonk (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If the account was blocked for editing from a proxy then the block log should say so. DuncanHill (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the account was blocked for editing behind a proxy. I'll try to be precise. The named account was blocked for whatever reason it was blocked. Someone contacted a checkuser and said (probably) this account is likely using a proxy. the checkuser (again, probably) determined that they were through what I assume is the same process we would determine that an unhidden IP address would be a proxy and blocked that IP address. I don't know or care to know what IP address that is. The block of the proxy isn't related to the block of the account. If you want to know what IP address it is and whether or not the block message is up to snuff, you can sleuth around Allison's blocks and contributions to do that. If you would like Nawlinwiki to give a proper block message for Belkagen Kwarun, you may ask him to on his talk page. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh forget it, can't be bothered. DuncanHill (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do strongly prefer to avoid any false positives, in this area -- they risk far more damage than false negatives, which will be resolved soon enough anyway in most cases. In this particular case, there are deleted edits at Heaven Knows (disambiguation) from two other accounts which used the page to build a few edits before engaging in pagemove vandalism; deleting those edits obscures this information, unfortunately, which in turn highlights the importance of care when fussing around with page histories. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Spam?

I would like to ask some explanation on the issue as follows.

[Start]>>

I absolutely do not agree, but this is the only thing what I can do.

Let us see what time brings on.

(On deleting article EURELECTRIC - yes; but e.g. Unipalm, Centra, UCPTE, UCTE - not :) Pas-6 (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• 06:07, 31 January 2009 User:Jac16888 (...) deleted "EURELECTRIC" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)

{{adminhelp}} (the story is above, no answer from admin User:Jac16888)

Pas-6 (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you ask him directly at User talk:Jac16888 first. Regards SoWhy 11:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

YES, I did it. No reaction.

Pas-6 (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Unfortunately there is no answer, no concrete information why 'EURELECTRIC' was in this (my) particular case spam (?). Could anybody {{helpme}} help me, please? The history of my starting efforts you can see above. If you don't mind...

Pas-6 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

---

You'll need an admin for that. {{helpme}} is generally not used for this purpose. Have a great day. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 18:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Pas-6 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

<<[END]

Not quite the end. The EURELECTRIC article was not deleted as spam, it was deleted under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria, see WP:CSD#A7. – ukexpat (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• A common problem: users with no contributions other than to create a single article and link it elsewhere (e.g. 750kV-powerline Widelka-Khmelnytskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). I would not say that the article made no assertion of notability - it stated that the group "represents the common interests of its members of the electricity industry at European level", and as a MIET I know that is a claim of notability of a sort, but the article really had no merit as a Wikipedia article, it was just a directory entry with a contact address. The usual advice applies: try a rewrite in user space with references and some context. Actually I started a new stub, there are tens of thousands of ghits and many hits on Scholar, Factiva and the like - I can't get access to the IET library right now but there is no doubt in my mind that this one would pass WP:N as it is cited as an authority in briefing papers by IEEE and other institutions. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested Block on User: Standforder

User: Standforder has many policy violations and sucpicious edits on a wide variety of pages. His user page has been deleted; I'd suggest a long or indefinite block.JakeH07 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:BAN for what a ban really is. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write block.JakeH07 (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to request blocks. Depending on the issue, there are violation-specific places to do so. For example, WP:AIV is for reporting vandalism.

Frazer McBride

Resolved

 – deleted already

Another vanity article? --Túrelio (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that this is not the correct venue for this. See WP:SPEEDY. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to restrict editing to those who sign up to an account

Resolved

 – Not an AN issue. –xeno (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Where can we start a community discussion to end once and for all the torrent of IP vandalism that we face? The ongoing discussion on flagged changes is a side issue. I want to end this once and for all, and say 'sign up, or no editing'. The number of good faith edits we'd lose through that change would be too small to register on any measure. But we'd gain the obvious. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals). It's listed at WP:PEREN though. –xeno (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

With some very good points, too, especially the fact that being able to track vandals by their IPs is really a good thing. --Masamage ♫ 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't think you'll get much support for that. Loads of amazing contributions come from Ip editors, and requiring account registration would simply move the vandalism to come from accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, we don't get that many great contributions from IP editors. That is absolutely, completely, demonstrably untrue. What we get from IP editors is trouble, hassle, POV, revert wars and general shit. You can give me a few examples of good IP editors, but if we required them to sign up the committed would do so anyway, so I see no need for us to carry on like this. We would lose absolutely nothing by this. So let's start a formal process. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree with that assessment. Yes a lot of trouble comes from Ips, and if you're just looking at filtered recent changes then it may seem like that's all that comes from them, but a vast amount of good editing also comes from Ips - IMO more than enough to justify the risk of open editing. The implicit assumption that an editor's worth can be determined by an account is simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the correct venue is thataway. –xeno (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No, not good enough. Nobody goes there. Let's find somewhere better, with a big vote, that we then take forward as the will of the community. In the meantime, we will never be taken seriously as an encyclopedia if any 8-year-old can do anything to us.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, that kind of soapboxing isn't really going to convert anyone. If you genuinely have a solid argument, propose it at the village pump. If you manage to gather any particular support, move it to a subpage and file a RfC. Whatever, maybe there's a better way to do it. In any case, it doesn't belong here. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

These discussions usually take place at /dev/null. For a practical suggestion, take a look at flagged revisions, which allows sorting the wheat from the chaff, and doesn't require us to change the m:Foundation issues, which is probably a non starter.

Honestly, the fact that Wikipedia is one of the top hits on almost any google search you can imagine suggests that we are already taken very seriously. The entire point of the project is to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Forcing vandals to register throwaway accounts won't resolve anything. I will add that from my perspective, IP editors do do a lot of good in areas, especially pages that involve frequent statistical updates. Resolute 22:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future, questions like this are much better suited for the help desk. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Alasdair,in regard to the quality of anonymous edits, you are wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&diff=prev&oldid=115731955 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Opabinia_regalis/Article_statistics#Recent_mainspace_changes_survey and other surveys that indicate that the majority of IP edits are not vandalism. John Reaves 22:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs make more vandalism than other editors, but the majority of IP edits are not vandalism. Dragons flight (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. And everyone knows it. 95% of IP edits are vandalism, whether reverted or not. There are just too many to check. The point is that having an account ties you to responsibility. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

hahaha!! That's a good one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 February 2009

You are delusional and probably shouldn't be editing here if you think that. John Reaves 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're there could you also propose that new accounts are also prohibited, because they are nothing but trouble. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia becomes "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (provided you have registered)"? – ukexpat (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I love the made up "95%" figure. There have been some studies on this listed on Village Pump and the Signpost that give a different view. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If we require a registered account then the vandals will just make throwaway accounts. These are the same people regardless of if they have a username or an IP. I for one am glad that most vandals are IPs as IPs are less anonymous than accounts. I am also glad for the great amount of benefit that IPs give to Wikipedia. Chillum 03:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that disallowing IP edits would stop most drive-by vandalism, as well as most drive-by productive editing, but it would cause precisely 0% reduction in persistent vandalism, POV pushing, and other such nasties because those people have no problem signing up for an account or fifty. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Technodrome's Toilet community ban proposal

Resolved

 – Editor is de facto banned as no admin will unblock him. Protonk (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

For reasons involving uncontroversial disruption in the past, I am proposing that this user be marked as banned:

• The Technodrome's Toilet (talk · contribs)

From April 2007 to October 2007, this user disrupted Wikipedia by adding blatantly unverifiable and/or false information and original research [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85], placed a blatantly unjustified and disruptive deletion proposal [86] [87].

Since this user doesn't even have a vandals chance of being unblocked, I am asking that the community consider this user banned. While I do know that this user is a suspected sockpuppet, I feel that this user should be marked as banned anyway. I do recall reading a WP:ANI thread a few months ago. If someone has the link to that thread, I would appreciate it if someone provided a link to help others better understand this issue. The reason I know about this users disruption is because I found a post made by this user on another users talk page. I don't know if the user is continuing the disruption with sockpuppets, but regardless, I feel the need to propose this ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WhatLinksHere is your friend. – iridescent 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have just the the checkuser relating to this very user. Here is the link to that checkuser. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Inconclusive, open proxy"? Doesn't sound very ban-waiting-to-happen to me. Why the fuss now over events that happened in 2007, anyway? – iridescent 23:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence, justification, indication, suggestion, implication, belief, or even a thought of a belief that this user will ever be unblocked. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

In which case a de facto ban is already in place and no further action is needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying he/she is banned without the title?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Effectively. If a user is in a situation where no admin with the sense of the average garden gnome will unblock him he can be considered "banned" without consensus. Ironholds (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm keeping this discussion open to ask the community to confirm the ban. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? If he's blocked and he's socking, just take it to SPI as a "block avoidance." If you are looking for cover to revert their edits per WP:BAN, I'd say that you shouldn't bother; it is the least important and most spottily enforced provision in that policy. If you are looking for confirmation alone, I would point out that the provision in BAN that says editors are effectively banned if no admin would reasonably reverse their indefinite block is written specifically to obviate that discussion. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Then I'll just drop this proposal since I was just looking forward to the naming of this user as banned anyway. I'm now convinced that this proposal is not necessary. Somebody, please close this. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 18:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Northwestgnome

Resolved

 – Maybe a longer glance at the history of their userpage would have helped..._Gb^T/c 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Administrators,

You may already know this, but I was curious when I saw this on the user page of the user known as Northwestgnome.

Northwestgnome enjoys spending his time patrolling the newly added wikipedia pages and trying to attack other editors who do not agree with him. He/She has shown incredible depth in being able to talk out of both sides of their mouth while totally being full of more sewage than a treatment plant.

Figured i'd pass it along, I was concerned that this person wants to attack other editors. A quick glance at the talk page seems to confirm the user page statement. Spinach Monster (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

looks more like an attempt at a joke to me. I believe it is intended as humor. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it's two bits of vandalism (here and here) that they've clearly decide to retain on their userpage. _Gb^T/c 15:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out, even having that up there if he did it wouldn't have been wrong IMO, but I figured the fact that the comments were welcomed there were a matter for concern. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Swoopo

I thought about putting this on the Spam noticeboard, but it doesn't fit that format. For the uninitiated, go to Swoopo's website and marvel at the money-making glory that you can only wish you thought of. Just don't be fooled into playing their game.

Swoopo's WP article read almost like their press release earlier tonight[88], so I had a go at it[89]. It's still rough, but the main issue is I'm sure their employees will be back at some point soon to "fix it up".

I'd guess that Swoopouk (talk · contribs), Asdf25 (talk · contribs), and Arjun G. Menon (talk · contribs) are employees, and there are several IPs that are SPAs there as well. CU might be hard since they have offices in 3 countries.

Have a look, poke around, maybe block some socks/meats. And while I know we shouldn't use blogs for sources (they were all already there!), it's too late for me to dig up proper refs right now. NJGW (talk) 08:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a high risk article worth semi-protecting, which will address IPs anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done - Sorta like a no-frills flagged revision really :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swoopo. rootology (C)(T) 04:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Change of administration means massive cleanup project needed

Resolved

 – Doesn't require any admins to resolve, since it's a content matter, anyone can do this. rootology (C)(T) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The Obama administration has completely scotched the websites of the Bush administration. No redirects, no nothing, everything except the pre-2001 history pages is just down the memory hole. Hey, it's their computers, they can do what they want, but for us, this means that thousands of links in the encyclopedia to www.whitehouse.gov/* are now dead links.
2. Somewhat more trivially, there are about 200 articles about cases pending in United States courts that are now all mistitled as X v. Bush. Because Bush was sued in his official capacity, rather than in his personal capacity, the cases have been renamed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), and articles need to be moved to X v. Obama pages.

I raise it here in case there's an easy way to set up a project or bot to tag all these dead links and move all these outdated/mistitled pages. Apologies in advance if there is a better noticeboard than WP:AN to raise this problem. THF (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're I think after Wikipedia:Bot requests. There's a template (someone correct me if I'm wrong) for busted links like this, that can be easily mass-added. Ditto for the moves if there are a lot. You could probably just do those yourself, in a couple days, even if it's 200ish. rootology (C)(T) 06:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look what I found. --NE2 07:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

One well-done WP:AWB pass will do you, probably... rootology (C)(T) 07:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually some pages automatically redirect. Maybe we'll be lucky and they'll fix the rest? --NE2 07:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hah - check out where http://www.whitehouse.gov/mrscheney/ redirects to --NE2 07:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should probably set up a page to list which directories have changed, and only then run AWB. --NE2 07:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Any project needs to be done fast, because links to Obama administration webpages will be clean and start to be added, which will make things harder for the bot. Plus editors are incorrectly simply removing links and adding fact tags instead of adding {dead link} tags. THF (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an admin job, though, it's a straight content. You should ask at that bot page, or you can start to fix it yourself. rootology (C)(T) 13:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

File Data Linking to un-needed Category

I have tried to tidy up the "Icons for Canal Descriptions" icons. There were icons in both en.wikipedia and commons, giving rise to two category pages of the same name (with different content). The majority were alraedy been moved to Commons, and I have moved the rest. Therefore all the icons now show in Commons:Category:Icons for canal descriptions, and the Category:Icons for canal descriptions should now be empty - and I could flag it for delete - however one of the icons moved before I started has the text en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions in the file description, and is thus preventing the category from being empty. File name is BSicon_whfSTR.svg. Description that is causing the problem follows...

---

( {{BotMoveToCommons|en.wikipedia}} {{Information |Description=English: Copy of BSicon_whfSTR.svg by User:Smurrayinchester, using standard naming scheme for canal mapping en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wiki)

---

Can someone remove the "en:" from the description? Then the category page Category:Icons for canal descriptions should become empty Ronhjones (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've corrected the link in your post to the commons category (you'd put too many capital letters in) and deleted the local empty file page for that image. I can't see why a simple link from Commons would put a Commons-only file in an en-Wikipedia category, so the problem may now disappear. Or, then again, I may have completely misunderstood how images and Commons work (not for the first time). Bencherlite^Talk 22:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem is still there. I've looked at the Commons entry in detail - checked every editable (by me) section. I can find no link to en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions that can be removed by me. The only entry for that link that I can see is in the "Comment" section of the "File History" - which appears as a blue link - which suggests it must have the double square brackets around it, and that must be causing the category page to be populated. Ronhjones (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's not how categories work. If you can see the link in the text, then it's not being used to categorise the article/file. E.g. Category:France (written as [[:Category:France]], note the leading ":") is a link, and doesn't put this page into that category; if I put [[Category:France]] (without the ":", and of course without the "nowiki" tags around it) then that would put this page into that category. Sod it. I'm going to delete the category anyway. If someone can work out a better fix than this, please do! Bencherlite^Talk 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Ronhjones (talk) 02:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly looks like a bug to me. --NE2 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that I/you cannot see the underlying code in that comment field, if it is something like [[:en:Category:Icons for canal descriptions]], then as in Bencherlite's example with France - the initial colon is not displayed, only the blue link of the rest. Ronhjones (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Anonmoos' copyright violation

User:AnonMoos keeps restoring plagiarized text[90][91][92] even with repeated warning and proof that the text is plagiarized[93] from this source. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting a 404 File Not Found on that source, but the material is also present here. At a glance, it seems to predate our publication. I'm looking into it more deeply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I had added a v to the end of the link, I don't know how. Here is the correct article link http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030121.html --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigation shows that this text was added in October 2008, here. There's obviously no question of source, as it was cited. The material added suffers both from close paraphrasing and also literal duplication more than sufficient to make it a copyright problem. For the benefit of onlookers, I'll note that User:AnonMoos did not place this text and seems to have cleaned copyright infringement from the article him or herself on a number of occasions, but has restored this text, evidently because s/he believes that the replacement proposed is non-neutral. I'll let the user know that this is not a proper solution for copyright infringement, which must be removed. If new language proposed is not agreed upon, an acceptable short-term solution pending arrival at new text might be to restore the article to this point and work forward from there. I'll also notify the original contributor that such additions are not acceptable under our copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article

A senior editor who had previously attempted to delete the entire British America article recently vandalized the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations article following hours of carefully researched contributions by other editors. Recurring deletions that show little or no knowledge of the subject matter, clear bias (as here against northern Baptists and for the historically false notion that the Southern Baptist Convention emerged out of a vacuum) and that privilege narrow subjective standards of relevance over article development appear to be a form of vandalism.

This article is important for developing understanding of the history of Baptists in America, the development of universal principles of religious freedom and political philosophy that were influential in the American Declaration of Independence and are relevant to religious debates today concerning theocracies and development of democratic governance that separates religious influence from political institutions.

The colony was also one of the most important refuges in the Americas during the 17th and early 18th centuries for Sephardic Jews who escaped from Portugal and Spain. The colony is therefore clearly important in Jewish history as it concerns the Americas.

For over a hundred years, Newport, Rhode Island was one of the most important maritime centers in the American colonies along with New York, Boston and Charleston until it was seized by the British during the Revolutionary War.

The King Charles II charter for Rhode Island in the late 1600s is an important constitutional and legal document presenting principles of religious freedom that influenced the development of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The senior editor complained to an administrator who appears to have chosen to support the senior editor without reviewing the content deleted by the senior editor to assess verifiable relevance of that content to the article. The article has thus been reduced almost to stub status due to the vandalism resulting from the senior editor's activity. Furthermore, the administrator who took sides with the vandalizing senior editor went further to block development of the article stub by "protecting" the article from improvement by other contributors and by deleting clearly relevant Wikiproject tags on the discussion page that could lead other Wikipedia contributors to donate their time and expertise to the improvement of this article.

Finally, the administrator was asked for an explanation of whether the content deleted by the senior editor was reviewed prior to blocking its restoration, and no response has been supplied. The administrator was also asked for an explanation of why clearly relevant Wikiproject tags were removed when the purpose of Wikiproject tags is apparently to promote article improvement; the administrator's perfunctory response was "not how it works." It's worth noting that understanding that the removed Wikiproject tags are in fact relevant to the development of this article is aided by review of the article content that was deleted by the senior editor.

This sounds like it may be Wikipedia:WikiBullying or Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Is this a situation that is appropriate for mediation or a third opinion? Unfortunately, many contributors to Wikipedia don't have time to spend time making good faith contributions to the content of this forum only to have that work destroyed and then have to spend even more time investigating solutions to have verifiably relevant content treated seriously and fairly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammy Houston (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)