Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive202

Adminship

Resolved

Where do I go to see about becoming an admin on the Navajo Wikipedia. nv:Choinish'įįhí:Seb_az86556 and I have been working hard to get the Navajo Wikipedia up and running and we have made a lot of headway. However, at least one of us needs to be made an admin there. nv:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is a Navajo and is trying to translate the site messages and buttons, but we are encountering difficulties because he needs more powers. nv:Choinish'įįhí:Stephen G. Brown 08:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate the support. My main page is (English) here Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 09:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so it is not our concern. However, you may be interested in requests for permissions. MER-C 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Igorberger - resignation of mentorship

With regret, I now resign my mentorship of User:Igorberger. Igor was blocked/community banned in April08 [1] (warning, seriously long thread). After a recent discussion [2] at AN, Jayvdb unblocked Igor on my personal request, subject to some conditions [3]. It's quite possible that we did indeed reach a satisfactory mentoring agreement, but agreement and complying with an agreement are two different things.

The proximate cause here is that admin Gwen Gale instructed Igor here not to make P-I edits without his mentor (i.e. my) approval. I consider this striction to be well within the discretionary remedies of WP:ARBPIA. Further, I had specifically asked Igor (privately) to not make P-I edits without sandboxing them first and asking my advice. His agreeable response (with protest) is here. Igor has recently placed a suggested edit on an article talk page [4] - which is good, I've encouraged him to discuss before editing. But then after all of 25 minutes of talk page presence, he has made the edit [5]. I'm not able to discern how this is anything other than a direct challenge to my own and several other people's efforts here (though sheer cluelessness is a possibility).

Anyway, I'm done with this editor. I'll reflect on my own failures at leisure. I can expand on my experience with Igorberger's edits after his recent unblocking if it's requested, it would be a fairly long list. Just now, I've spent enough time already. Thanks Gwen and thanks John, and thanks to the other admins who gave me space on this task! Franamax (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, I am sorry you giving up on me, but I tried following your advice as much as possible. My last edit I brought to the article talke page and got an ok from another editor. I did not think JIDF is a P/I article. Igor Berger (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

But you were warned about the exact same edit at Gilad Shalit? Nope, sorry Igor. You can test limits all you want, but eventually you will exceed them. As I said, I have a fairly long list. I really did try, sorry it didn't work out. All I've seen through this process has been you insisting that you should just do whatever you want. Your latest needling at our mentorship page about the "status quo" didn't help - but I was prepared to ignore it. This latest bit of limit-testing: no, enough now. Franamax (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry Franamax. I did not realize it is I/P article. I thought it is a social media website like Facebook Igor Berger (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is alright Franamax, you tried your best and should not feel bad about things outside of your control. Thank you for the notice. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Since the unblock of Igorberger was on the basis that he had a suitable mentor and there is clear evidence that mentorship is still required in this case I have reinstated Igor's indefinite block until a new mentor can be found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well done to you Franamax for your valiant efforts despite constant reasons for giving up much earlier. I also add my support for Spartaz's actions in reblocking Igorberger at this time.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww, shucks! (shuffles feet) Tweren't nuthin' :) Seriously though, so long as it's just my own time (and a few other people's, which I'm not happy about), I get to spend my own time however I feel like doing it. I'm a big boy, and I volunteered for the job. 'Tis all good. Franamax (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, it's true you said something much like that to me at the outset, that there were no worries because you were spending your volunteer time as you pleased, but nonetheless, you were amazingly patient and thorough, in many and sundry ways indeed trying to bring IB back into the fold. If anyone could have done, it would have been you, or someone doing what you did for over a month. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note. I reinstated IB's edit to the JIDF page as a respected editor had given it the go-ahead on the talk page and it is relevant to the article and referenced to a reliable source. On the other hand, I find it hard to take seriously IB's claim that he did not realise that it was an I/P issue when it concerns a campaign for an Israeli soldier being held by a Palestinian militant group. I can quite understand the actions taken with regard to ending his mentorship and re-applying the block.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw that reinstatement and no problem from my end, each article edit should stand on its own merits. It seems a tad trivial to me, unless judged from the editor's advocacy on his own blog and Twitter posts, in which case it becomes a major issue. But no problem at all with your revert, much wiser brains than mine will scrutinize the edit and likely do the "merciless editing" thing. ;) Franamax (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the stuff in that article could be described as a tad trivial. That hasn't stopped it from being the scene of numerous edit wars and the cause of a number of blocks. If this action hadn't happened, I might have looked to see if there was the potential of a conflict of interest. I've seen comments from the JIDF and/or their "David Appletree" persona at his blog and he may have since joined the group. Of course, making an edit that an independent editor has approved would be fine under most COI circumstances.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not familiar with the article or the editor - but if he's under restriction from editing I/P articles, I find it laughable that he could claim that an article in the category 'I/P conflict' and that has detailed accounts of the activities of this group and its relationship to the I/P conflict is not covered. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies all around. I wasn't aware that Igor was under any edit restrictions when I encouraged him to WP:BE BOLD and add the Tweet4Shalit information to the JIDF article. It was reliably sourced and relevant. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrectible Page name spelling error (Hyde Park,Chicago needs to be moved to Hyde Park, Chicago)

Resolved

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow Hyde Park (Chicago) and Hyde Park, Chicago redirect to the mispelled (lacking a space after the comma) Hyde Park,Chicago. Please move the page, its history, its talk and its talk history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It would have been better just to slap the {{db-move}} template on it rather than posting here, because it was completely uncontroversial (done by a vandal), but I have nevertheless performed the moves for you. Ale_Jrb^talk 12:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, y'all can just sent these to WP:RM (and @TonyTheTiger, feel free to come to WP:RM yourself and post any others that you see as well). Taking care of them yourselves is nice too, of course! Just be careful not to kick over any anthills is all (That's a fairly rare thing with moves, but it does happen. Those of us who regularly monitor movereqs can at least ensure that none of you are stepping into any issues accidentally, is all).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased TfD closure by nominator: requesting re-closure

Discussion now at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Infobox_Australian_Place_TfD, please comment there. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Over at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 6#Template:Infobox_Australian_Place a nominator has gone beyond merely withdrawing their nomination, and formally closed the discussion as "no consensus". There was a lot of ill-feeling and mistrust in the discussion, and considering the "keep" side of the discussion garnered 85% support, many of us see the "no consensus" outcome as a completely inappropriate result. I struck the result, and wrote underneath it "Sorry dude, you don't get to close your own nomination with an obviously bogus result that flatters your position. On raw votes I count 21-4. The result of the discussion was keep. If you don't like it, request a neutral third-party closure, as you should have done in the first place". Andy Mabbett undid me. I undid Andy Mabbett. It's getting messy. Could a uninvolved third party please review and re-close. Hesperian 01:37, 8 September 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.

Copyright issues with User: Fanuc18

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring up a matter of a user violating copyright, but when I came across this image, and noticed its resolution, I suspected something was wrong. Scrolling down shows that the uploader, Fanuc18, uploaded it, claiming that he is the copyright holder, which seems particularly dubious. Going to his Talk Page shows a litany of images with copyright problems, some of which have been deleted, and other things, which predate the uploading of the above image. I'm not sure if anyone was aware of he recently uploaded an copyrighted image of a TV show poster claiming he was its copyright holder, but I just thought I'd alert someone here. The poster can certainly be used to illustrate that show's article, but under a Fair Use claim, which would require its resolution be reduced. I put a reduce request tag on that image, but I don't know how to change the license/permission template, so if someone could fix it to a Promo one, it would be appreciated. If this is the wrong place to post such alerts, I apologize; please let me know. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've tagged it puidisputed, note that that uploader has a Talk page full of copyright violation notices. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – — Jake Wartenberg 03:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a backlog at WP:AIV, if an admin could take a look. It would be appreciated.--David | ^Talk 03:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Backlog appears to be suppressed now –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Locke Cole

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending the "Locke Cole banned" remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. The remedy banning Locke Cole (talk · contribs) from editing Wikipedia for six months has been amended as follows:

• Locke Cole is provisionally unbanned effective at the enactment of this motion.
• Should Locke Cole be blocked as a result of violating the three-revert rule, his full editing ban will be reinstated for the remainder of its original duration, until December 14, 2009.
• Locke Cole remains indefinitely topic-banned from style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates, and any related discussions.
• Locke Cole remains subject to an editing restriction for 12 months (until June 14, 2010), under which he is prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates.
• Locke Cole is reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in his editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at the case talk page. Locke Cole's account has been unblocked pursuant to this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

COI issue

moved to WP:COIN.  Skomorokh  15:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Histmerge candidacy

I'm asking this question here because I'm (perhaps wrongly) assuming that administrators will most likely know the correct answer.

Having been made aware of the new histmerge list and the enormous backlog contained therein, I decided to dig into doing some of the moves, if I could. I understand the instructions on how to fix cut and paste moves, and I've completed one history merge successfully. I've come across a couple of cases where a single, original author cuts the text and moves it to a new page, verbatim. As they've been the only contributor to the cut text, would this mean that there is no need for a history merge? For an example, see the history of J. T. Davenport and the history of the destination John_Thistlewood_Davenport. My guess is that this would make it not a histmerge candidate, but I wanted to check with others first before marking them as such with the template.

Thanks! Maedin\^talk 12:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• As long as there are no licensing issues, a history merge shouldn't be necessary. Perhaps G6 earlier edits (presuming a redirect at the original) to help avoid future forks? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's a single account, Thomasjmdavenport (talk · contribs), submitting the same text as two pages. See this diff of the original versions of both pages, which were created within minutes of one another. Since the content was identical, and from the same author, and since the first page wasn't expanded, this edit and this edit seem entirely correct. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that any edits were incorrect. I'm just (for future reference) making sure that, as long as the author and the cut-and-paster are the same, then there is no need for a histmerge (assuming, of course, that the original has not been further edited apart from redirects and such). As another example, this author made two edits before cutting and pasting to here, although he didn't copy and paste the contents exactly. This is not a history merge candidate, on account of the authorship, correct? Maedin\^talk 13:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Correct as in the correct course of action to take (and that has already been taken) with no further action necessary.

      If there's a 'bot tagging these things as copy-and-paste moves, then you should have a word with the 'bot owner. It's a frequent occurrence in my experience that novice editors create duplicate articles when a subject has alternative titles. (There is one case in Special:Newpages — Bananas Comedy Club and Bananas (Comedy Club) — right now as I write this.) The correct course of action is the oft-taken simple one: redirect the alternative titles with a {{R from alternative name}} redirect. Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

      • Yep, see WP:New histmerge list. It does state that some of them may be false positives, and those which are should be tagged with {{nahmc|<destination page>}}, which will exclude that article from a future bot run. The idea being that all past history merge candidates will be dealt with, one way or another, and that future bot runs will only pick up recent cases, which would also hopefully mean a higher likelihood of a good resolution. You have answered my question though; I just needed confirmation that a single user cutting and pasting text he has written himself is no problem. If he cuts and pastes text that someone else has contributed to, then there is an attribution issue and a history merge can be considered. Maedin\^talk 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in history merging such cases ... at least they more clearly show the times when the author worked on the page and how many edits it took them to write the article. But such cases aren't important in the grand scheme of things. Graham87 15:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. There is no need to merge them, but there is no harm either. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that clarification. I will use my judgement. I would have been inclined to history merge even in straightforward same-author cases, but as a new admin I had (hopefully irrational) fears of angry messages saying things like, "Why are you wasting wikipedia server resource etc etc on history merges that don't need to be performed"? Now at least I can say I took advice! :D Maedin\^talk 16:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by user Alexikoua

This is an incident involving a specific discussion and a specific editor. Please read the edit notice when posting to this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Help, identity outed by editor

Moved to WP:AN/I. Tim Song (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Mythdon

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion further amending Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong.

Mythdon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of six months. At the conclusion of the ban period, Mythdon will be on a six-month conduct probationary period, to run under the current restrictions, as set out in Ryulong.

The discussion and voting on this motion has been archived at the case talk page. Mythdon's account has been blocked for a period of six months pursuant to this amendment.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

What to do about List of surviving veterans of World War I when the last veteran dies?

Resolved

 – Article talk page is the right venue, no admin attention needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on this point at Talk:List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I#Proposal_for_what_to_do_when_the_final_veteran_of_WW1_dies, but I feel that admins need to get involved, as they would have to implement a solution!

My proposal on that page is:

• This article should be a redirect to List of last surviving World War I veterans by country, and a message on that page should read similar to On 99 Month 2099, Name was the last veteran of World War I to die., then this would be followed by the list of the last surviving World War I veterans by country.

As there are very few other pages which have this problem (most lists either grow and grow, or the current members on the list leave and are replaced, as in the oldest people in the world type of list), I feel that a decision needs to be made before it is too late - there are so few veterans left. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I like your solution. I'd support it as a formal proposal,. ThuranX (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you were directed here from the help desk, but this isn't an admin issue, it's a content issue. Admins aren't super editors, they have no bigger say in content issues than you or I. Your discussion on Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I is the correct venue, perhaps with a pointer on Talk:List of last surviving World War I veterans by country to that discussion. If your solution is chosen, you won't need an admin to implement it, anyone can redirect an article. Consider this an invitation for people to join the discussion there, if they choose, but this isn't anything that needs admins more than editors. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Floquenbeam. I have left pointers to the proposal discussion on the following talk pages:

• Talk:List_of_last_surviving_World_War_I_veterans_by_country
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People‎
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography‎
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history‎

as they are the Projects that the two affected articles fall under. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat the same phenomenon as the G.A.R.. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

• William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ehpitcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.246.220.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.241.12.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• Other IPs used as well, just listing the two recent (and current) ones for the sake of brevity.

Brief background. Secret Service agent William Greer is believed in some quarters to have been involved to some extent in the assassination of JFK, some people even going so far as to say he fired the fatal shot from the front seat of the limousine. Since July 2007, the William Greer has been the target of a fringe POV pusher intent on making the article basically an attack piece on Greer using all sorts of original research, unreliable self-published sources, even if which properly sourced would not belong in the short article on Greer to the extent it has been. Six months ago I said that the place the fringe theory should be added is Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories with a short summary in the Greer article, which is exactly where WP:FRINGE says it should go. But, stubborn as ever and insisting that anyone removing the information from Greer's article is trying to cover up the truth(™) (see recent talk page edits and edit summaries), the two year edit war has carried on regardless.

The "facts" that the editor adds are generally observations on primary source material designed to make Greer look as guilty as possible. "Facts" such as "His testimony also seems to deny that he turned to look directly at Kennedy during the shooting, although the Zapruder film shows him doing this." sourced to the film and his testimony, both primary sources. Similarly "The FBI interviewed Greer after the assassination and, although agents Kellerman and Behn were also interviewed, Greer's interview is unique in that his physical description is also recorded in the 11/27/63 FBI report." is sourced only to the FBI report, which has also been used in other related articles to try and insinuate that Greer was an FBI suspect. I could go on and on, but there's no real need I hope.

I'm unsure whether the Ehpitcher account is related to the IP editor, but it seems highly likely. Given this editor is a single purpose account that has violating pretty much every content policy going for two years and edit warring for two years to expose the truth(™), I believe it's time to bring this to an end. I am proposing a topic ban on all articles relating to the assassination of JFK, broadly construed to avoid the problems carrying on in related articles such as this edit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank Christ you only gave us the brief background. Endorse ban. Crafty (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. When an editor links to a YouTube video as a legitimate source, and then attacks other editors for trying to cover up the truth, he clearly does not get it. Two years is more than long enough for him to come to an understanding of the rules. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Dunno if I can endorse it since I'm an editor at that article, but this seems the best solution to deal with someone who has no interest in abiding by WP rules of content and civility. Gamaliel (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Clear evidence of tendentious editing. --Jayron32 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. It is clear there is a problem here with the above named accounts/IPs. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the main account. There's no evidence of any intention to contribute productively. Any further editing of the same style by IPs may be considered block evasion, and the IPs may be blocked as necessary. Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Good Lord... -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• How do we know these two IPs are the same person as the registered account? The IPs have been blocked repeatedly, but the registered account had a clean blocklog until someone indeffed today. Obviously there's a problem with attempting to use YouTube as a source, yet we don't indefinitely block someone when that's the only demonstration of inappropriate behavior. Could we have a bit clearer demonstration of the problem please, with diffs? Uncited assertion is a problematic basis for community action (if it's true in this instance, then please supply more substantiating evidence). Durova³¹² 23:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• The evidence is in the IP's contributions. There are no non-tendentious edits to the article, they are all reverts to one of two previous versions. One highly tendentious version, dated September 2008, was being reverted to until 16 August, shortly thereafter, a slightly amended but equally tendentious version was created by leaving out some of the information, and has been reverted to since then. All their contributions are evidence, just look at the page history. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Evidence presentations normally come in the shape of diffs and quotes, rather than invitations to review page histories. Durova³¹² 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• The diffs are in the contributions of both IPs. As RepublicanJacobite says, the editor has zero non-tendentious edits to the William Greer article, and all their edits are virtually the same. Therefore if you would like to see the evidence, I suggest clicking your mouse button twice instead of clicking it just once. All their edits to the John F. Kennedy assassination article itself are also tendentious, as I'm not counting minor fixes to tendentious information they have just added to be a separate edit. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• What's to be gained from indefinitely blocking an account that hasn't edited for more than two years? Nathan ^T 23:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• The same feeling. The account is inactive. This seems like a punitive block, rather than preventative. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• If we have reason to suspect that sockpuppetry is involved shouldn't it go to WP:RFCU before applying the banhammer? ϢereSpielChequers 23:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is very unlikely that a checkuser, or an admin patrolling SPI, will be able to tell you anything you can't see above. It's actually very unlikely a ban will achieve anything either... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The behavior certainly would be reprehensible if the report above is accurate. What we can't see above is much in the way of evidence; it's mostly unsupported assertion. It's hard to understand the haste with which an account that hasn't edited in two years has been indeffed over a biography whose subject has been deceased for the last quarter century. Shouldn't we put a bit more effort into making certain the proposal is correct? Durova³¹² 01:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an extremely small chance that a checkuser query could draw a connection between the IPs, but there is no way to connect the IPs to the account. So in the best case scenario, we are left with... banning a couple of IPs... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per others above, I don't see the point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It seems like a strange maneuver to block an abandoned account so that you can then say IPs who are editing are block evading - particularly when a link can't be established. Topic banning an IP is effectively impossible - why not just use semiprotection when necessary? Nathan ^T 01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• comment: Errr, you don't ban the IPs, you ban the person behind both the old account and the IPs, the block is just the technical implimentation of the ban. And you know that it's the same person per WP:DUCK, not per the CU data. And the point of banning is because so you can apply WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits because his input is no longer wanted and we don't want to spend time debating again and again the same flawed arguments with a person that just refuses to get the point. And if the IPs are not the same person, then they are editing only to push the same POV and sources as the account, which means that you can apply WP:MEAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Guys, please be careful not to inadverdently ban innocent IPs in an attempt to ban one particular individual. If the registered account is blocked, semi-protection should be adequate to protect the article, and blocking the IPs shouldn't be necessary. Now, if we had flagged revisions there would be even less of a problem. Cla68 (talk) 01:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be some confusion here. The account is only listed to show when the tendentious editing began and I am not seeking to have an account or IP blocked. I am seeking to have an editor topic banned, which can be enforced by block and page protection. As Enric Naval correctly states we don't ban IPs or even accounts, we ban editors. The disruption caused by the editor is ongoing and has been for most of the last two years. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I just accidently blocked (and then unblocked) myself

Resolved

I didn't know that admins could block themselves! Fortunately we can also unblock ourselves as well. I think I now have the most embarrassing block log on Wikipedia. Don't try this at home. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Others have done this too. This block log is exceptionally funny. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you not get the pop-up notice? John Reaves 10:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No (I use Google Chrome as my browser if that might make any difference). Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we were meant to have a self-block warning. Is it software or JavaScript? Ale_Jrb^talk 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Or a joke, in which case it's actually quite a good idea. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He might be talking about the popup in easyblock.js (the use is which is pretty much the only excuse for blocking oneself on accident =) –xeno^talk 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All the best people block themselves once. Durova³¹² 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

But only a select few block themselves for being an imposter. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Curious. An admin can block oneself, yet is unable to confer WP:God-King status flags - even on to an (permissable, naturally) alternate account. I know, I've tried! Does this dichotomy strike any one else as somewhat arbitrary? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• LHvU, you don't want that flag. Not only you don't get any useful elevated permissions, your Talk page attracts all sorts of vandals, kooks & other assorted troublemakers. (You know, stuff like "How was my edits 'original research'??? I didn't do any research at all to come up with those facts!") -- llywrch (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not if I were God-King, would it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind Nick, it might have been worse. You could have accidentally blocked another admin, for example. EyeSerene^talk 12:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Or could have accidentally blocked a user and not notice for an hour or so[6]. ;) Bidgee (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I got blocked as grawp by a bot. I think I win. :P -- Luk ^talk 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I can only offer this from my experience in a previous life.[7] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I keep thinking about blocking myself to get myself off here and doing something else more productive. Unfortunately Wikipedia is like crack and I just can't go cold turkey. Canterbury Tail talk 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Another admin would surely unblock you. Like crabs in a bucket, we shan't let one escape. –xeno^talk 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done this to myself too. At least I got to see what an autoblock notice looks like.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As punishment for your mistake you must chop down the largest tree in the forest, with.......a herring! Chillum 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We shall do no such thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Stuff happens. MastCell ^Talk 20:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... 1am ... possible WP:EWI Black Kite 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The toy block goes to administrators who accidentally block themselves.

There actually is an award for this... Durova³¹² 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And to wrap things up, the all time champ at admin self-blocks. Durova³¹² 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that per WP:BLOCK it will "almost never be acceptable" to unblock oneself. I suppose it's not that rare after all :) Tim Song (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments everyone. While I still feel dumb, at least I'm in good company. I'm yet to block another admin or myself so far today, so that's also an improvement over the last two days. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hate edit

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT&diff=prev&oldid=312750016 . This anon added text to the aritlce telling gay people to commit suicide. I don't think people who post such trash should be allowed to edit this site. All of the other edits from the IP have been in a similar vien. Zazaban (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

31 hour vacation, in case he comes back. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Tool to find which articles two editors have contributed to

There's a tool which will discover which articles etc two editors have both edited. Can someone help me find it? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~bjweeks/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py ? –xeno^talk 15:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

tools:~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php? Algebraist 15:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced material

User Wikispoke continues to add non-encyclopedic and unreferencable statements to True Romance (without edit summaries) regarding an undocumented and uncited bootleg internet re-edit of the film going around Pirate Bay. This persistent readdition of removed material is the only edit this user makes and continues to make despite warnings and guidance. Will a sysop please address this user. Thanks. Mjpresson (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this needs admin intervention just yet. You just finished leaving them a talk page message for the first time. Why not see how they react to that? --Onorem♠Dil 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I misread the watchlist page, not showing my last reversion, I thought they had done it yet again. I'll watch it. Mjpresson (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oversight

Resolved

 – Thanks, got the e-mail confirmation. Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 20:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea where it's appropriate to ask this, but how do I get confirmation of an Oversight e-mail I sent? I only ask because I checked the box to have a copy sent to me, and my e-mail client blocked it as dangerous (probably because I mention some particularly questionable things with respect to the contents of a particular page in it). I just want to make sure that it didn't likewise get shot-down / filtered by the system on the other end. How would I go about getting a confirmation of delivery?

Thanks for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 03:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

I don't know a way other than email that they do it automatically. you can always email them again and ask them to confirm receipt on your talk page. Protonk (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Most requests are responded to quickly enough that this isn't typically a problem. Assuming and P&P and I are thinking of the same thread, the email was received by oversight-l and is currently under discussion -- either way, I've replied via email to such effect. (Though Protonk's suggestion could work just as well, if I hadn't noticed this post.) – Luna Santin (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/194x144x90x118

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of one year.

All editors of the DreamHost article are reminded to abide by Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view, using reliable and verifiable sources; to engage in civil discussion on the talk page to resolve editorial disputes; and to use the relevant noticeboards and dispute resolution processes to seek external opinions on coverage of matters where the current editors may lack objectivity.

194x144x90x118's account has been blocked for a period of one year pursuant to this case.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Why in the world is American Literature: A Journal of Literary History, Criticism, and Bibliography protected from creation?

I'm getting a message that only admins can create that page. Anyway, if someone could create it with

#REDIRECT[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Literature_(journal)]]

{{R from alternative spelling}}

that would be great. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Not sure why you couldn't - I can't see that it was protected at all. I'm stumped. Shereth 22:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was never protected, so my guess would be a software bug was causing the problem. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be a regex on the title blacklist, probably too much punctuation or something like that. I don't know enough about regexes to pinpoint the precise problematic regex. Woody (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't match anything on the local blacklist. --Carnildo (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could the difficulties have been caused by the incorrect redirect syntax using a url rather than a wikilink? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think admins would have a magic pass on that one (though you're right, of course). SO probably not the main problem. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible I guess. Anyway it's redirected now, and never happened again since, so I guess it doesn't really matter anymore. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What do we do now about vandalism from London schools?

Just reverted some vandalism from 82.198.250.72 (talk · contribs) - I'm unclear as to what action we should be taking about continued vandalism from IPs like this one which was unblocked a while ago after discussion here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As while I wrote this the IP made two more vandalism edits I've blocked it for 24 hours to prevent any more today, but that's not a sufficient remedy Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The Synetrix IPs should be treated like any other school IPs which sometimes have good edits. That is, schoolblock them as needed. The previous discussion really centred around the hardblocks, which is really something only a checkuser should do. Softblocks, even long ones, should be fairly uncontroversial. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, what zzuzzz said is fine. I would say even go for another year softblock on these, but the 3 month you placed is fine too. –xeno^talk 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Close gridlocked merger discussion

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this gridlocked merger discussion, and consider whether it should be closed: Talk:Genocides in history#Merging Communist genocide here The proposal has been up for a month, and it is clear that there is no consensus. Yet a small group of editors are citing the discussion as reason for blocking other attempts to improve the controversial article, such as renaming it. --Anderssl (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• No administrator action is required. Calling for administrator action suggests a special power to arbitrate conflicts over content which administrators do not possess. Post a request at WP:Third opinion, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM. Recommend you start with the first of those and work up the line if no progress is made.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand - Help:Merge#Closing/archive a proposed merger states that "if the merger is particularly controversial, one may take the optional step of requesting closure by an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard". The point here being that two users already tried to close the discussion before, but were instantly reverted by other users although it is abundantly clear that there will be no consensus. There's been plenty of uninvolved editors coming in and offering their opinions only to be yelled at from all sides and leaving, so I doubt mediation will do much good... I am not asking for arbitration over the content, just to state whether the merger discussion should be closed or continue to be kept open in spite of no progress being made (the last contributions mostly are discussing whether to close the discussion or keep it open, there is no real discussion on the topic itself). --Anderssl (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the users who tried to close the discussion were reported to the ANI: [8] The admin that answered suggested that we might ask an admin to close the discussion. That's why I posted this request. --Anderssl (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to remove the resolved tag at the top of the section. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't sure if I was supposed to. :) --Anderssl (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I, but I'm pretty sure they won't have a problem with it. If they do, just tell them I was encouraging you to be bold. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I partially disagree with Doug here. While no administrator action is absolutely required, one of the duties of admins is to read consensus in contentious discussions. As an uninvolved admin with no prior opinion, I read through the discussion and then closed it accordingly. Hopefully the close sticks. I have also offered my opinion (as an editor, not an admin) of how to proceed. Hopefully this help will be of some assistance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Anderssl (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced RFM request

An anonymous IP who was trying to contest an AfD created Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/PODS (company) the other day. It's not attached to a regular RFM page or anything, so I'm not sure why it exists. Anyway, I marked it for CSD a few hours ago, but it hasn't been touched. Should it be deleted? Is this something for MFD? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's deletable but it would not hurt to drop by the IP talk page for a brief (and gentle) tutorial on how to contest deletions. Thatcher 21:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The IP figured it out two minutes later and posted on the AFD listing for the article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk page not moved with article

Resolved

 – History merged & talk page moved. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Steven Kaplan should be at Talk:Steven Kaplan (economist), I believe--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's because it was a cut-and-paste move from 2007... ouch. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you correct the histories?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I corrected the histories & took care of everything else that needed done. Unfortunately, there are many thousands of copy & paste moves that remain uncorrected from well before 2007. The reason they are rarely done is because they are a pain and rather time consuming. (And also there are always more pressing matters. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is now September 11 (or 9/11)

This is just a heads up to editors and administrators that articles relating to the 9/11 attacks are much more likely than usual to be the subject of vandalism, inappropriate editing, and point of view editing in the next 24-36 hours. As difficult as it may be, please try to be kind to earnest but unschooled editors; it will be hard to tell them from the problem editors. Risker (talk) 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Asgardian reverting during consensus discussion

Resolved

 – No action needed at this time. Other avenues of dispute resolution are available, there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text. –xeno^talk 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that the above matter of admin tools has been resolved, I think Asgardian's reversions during consensus discussion needs to be addressed. He was previously blocked for doing this, and again removed information from the article after four other editors made it clear that such information should remain. If he thought that discussion was concluded, then he reverted against consensus. If he thought it was still ongoing, then he knowingly reverted during a consensus discussion. Some action needs to be taken to let him know that this and related behavior on his part is not in the spirit of collaborative editing on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This is being discussed at User talk: J Greb#I'm not saying I told you so... and we should be able to come to some consensus on the next step. (Emperor (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

Once again, it has been stated by an administrator that I was not at fault.[9] The focus, and the continual focus should Nightscream continue to discuss this, is his unfortunate abuse of administrator priviledges. As to edit warring, Nightscream would appear to now be doing that exact thing with another editor [10] - cautioned and blocked for incivility [11] - at the very article Nightscream erroneously protected. Nightscream was also advised by both myself and an administrator that there was no consensus,[12] and [13] and a quick check reveals I was in discussion with another editor - in the spirit of collaborative editing [14] - when Nightscream protected the article.

Then there is also the side issues of Nightscream's comments to Mangojuice here regarding their opinion of his actions: [15]

As to my past history, we have all made mistakes, but an examination of past blocks reveals some were not appropriate, such as the one issued by Nightscream in this instance :[16] As I said before and will continue to do so, I am happy to discuss formatting styles at Red Hulk. xeno^talk has marked the issue as resolved, so I suggest we all move on. Thank you. Asgardian (talk) 03:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion on my admin activities, Asgardian, and it's not going to be, regardless of your attempts to shift it into one. That discussion, is above, and it was resolved. If you want to discuss that further, then take your comments pertaining to it up there.

Mangojuice's assertion that you did nothing wrong is untrue, because even if his statement that there was no clear consensus were true, that doesn't change the fact that you continued to revert during the discussion, a point that neither he nor you have addressed, despite my making that point clear in the first post that started this discussion. Can you explain this?

Indeed, your insistence that his say-so settles the issue of your reverts flies in the face of your simultaneous attempt to argue the settled one regarding my admin actions. If Mango's say-so resolves the questions about your behavior, then why does the same principle not apply to the fact that he and others agreed the matter of my admin activities was resolved? He and xeno agreed that I had done nothing wrong aside from an error, and both Mangojuice and ThuranX apologized to me on my Talk Page. So why do you continue to press the issue, even after Emperor made it clear that the two issues are separate? Mangojuice's mere say-so about consensus absolves you of the unrelated point of your reverting during discussion, but his and numerous others' statements that my matter is both separate and resolved does not hold true for that?

Simple. It's because you are habitually dishonest and manipulative during such disputes, and never abstain from stooping to whatever shameless tactic you can in order to evade intellectually honest scrutiny or criticism. The fact that you can feign adherence to the above principle in one passage, and then contradict it in the next one in attempt to detract from the true focus of this discussion further illustrates this.

As far as your willingness to discuss formatting at Red Hulk, you made it clear here that you did not wish to discuss that issue there, but at the Comics Project Page, and refused to answer a question of mine at Talk:Red Hulk for that reason. Despite this, you still have not joined the discussion at the Comics Project Page, despite the fact that I started that discussion four days ago because you requested it. Why is this? Xeno marked it as resolved? Where? Are you referring to this or some other discussion? The links show that he has not done any such thing. Can you point out where Xeno has said this?

I would point to Asgardian's behavior here as further evidence that something needs to be done about his inability to adhere to Wikipedia's principles. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is clearly marked resolved above. You have also failed to be civil, and are in fact openly abusive (Simple. It's because you are habitually dishonest and manipulative during such disputes, and never abstain from stooping to whatever shameless tactic you can in order to evade intellectually honest scrutiny or criticism. The fact that you can feign adherence to the above principle in one passage, and then contradict it in the next one in attempt to detract from the true focus of this discussion further illustrates this.)

In short, this is not conduct becoming an administrator. Asgardian (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous issue pertaining to admin tools is marked resolved above, which is why you were out of line in trying to dredge it up. The current issue pertaining to your behavior is not. The two issues are separate, and your attempt to claim the latter is resolved, while continuing attempts to dredge up the former further illustrates the problem of your behavior. No one has made any determination that the issue of your behavior is resolved, as the matter of your reverting during discussion has not been addressed. You continue to deliberately ignore that point, and to pretend that pointing it out somehow constitutes "abuse". You are wrong on both counts, as you are on the notion that you are in any way fit to make judgments about "conduct".

To make the separate nature of the two issues clearer, I'm changing the section heading to a Level 2 one, since I'm the one who started this discussion in the first place. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have you considered perhaps informal mediation or an RFC to help resolve this dispute? I see that the consensus discussion is being held at a less active subpage: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Titles/Dates/Issue numbers in article text, why not move it to WT:COMICS? As this edit war was over a few days ago I think no admin actions is needed at this time so I'm marking this resolved. –xeno^talk 01:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not begin this discussion to discuss that issue, xeno. My first post at the very to of this section explains what I wanted to discuss. It is not about that edit war, nor about the issue of titles or dates in article. I already began a discussion on that topic per Asgardian's request on the WikiComics Project Page a week ago. I began this discussion to discuss the issue of Asgardian's policy violations, which have nothing to do with whether the content dispute he exhibited this behavior was itself resolved. Nightscream (talk) 07:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If this is a common pattern that more than one person has tried to address with Asgardian without success, then you could look into filing an WP:RFC/U. If not, I would simply remind all parties to observe the WP:BRD cycle and work out the content dispute at the appropriate venue... Any admin action at this point would be beyond stale. –xeno^talk 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school

Hi all. I was wondering if someone with a bit of technical knowledge might be able to write a page on creating edit filters for the new admin school? We have Wikipedia:Edit filter/Instructions, but that's still a little complex for people with limited technical knowledge. One of the problems we've had is people creating filters with little knowledge about how to do them so detailed instructions, written simply, might be a good idea. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Instruction #1: Do not attempt to make a filter if you do not understand what you are doing. Chillum 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree... Edit filters are for people who know what they are doing when it comes to regex... –xeno^talk 13:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking much the same thing. If you don't have sufficient technical knowledge to make one 'safely', you probably shouldn't be making one at all - especially as there are plenty of admins who do have the knowledge, and can help you. It's easier than, say, the spam blacklist, but you can do lots of damage very easily... Ale_Jrb^talk 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's all good and well saying that, but in practice people will still create filters (even if they have limited knowledge). Of course we can add a disclaimer in, but it would be good to have simple instructions about how to make a filter so they're open to more admins. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a warning template to Wikipedia:Edit filter/Instructions, for what little good it might do. Rd232 ^talk 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a flag for those who can create/edit filters. Why is it being granted automatically with +sysop? Shouldn't people have to demonstrate competence before being allowed to edit such a powerful tool? → ROUX ₪ 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is - a number of administrators are self granting it, I believe (though I did also, so I can't really talk). The thing is, the right is required to view the details of hidden filters, which is fine for all admins and the reason many are granting it, but it also allows you to edit them. I think the best solution would be separate read/write rights, but that's not how it is atm. Ale_Jrb^talk 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, separating would make sense. Grant read privilege automatically, restrict write to those who have demonstrated competence. Is that programmatically feasible? → ROUX ₪ 14:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

<-Advertising Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested more widely rather than training a cadre of experimenting regexers might be a better job. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 14:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe admins can now view private filters without the EFM flag (since r52743) –xeno^talk 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a flag, but admins can grant it to themselves (yes, even noobish ones). They really should have the good sense not to start editing filters until they have a good grasp of regex, at which point they'd probably be able to understand the instructions already written. I would hazard a guess that "simple instructions on how to write filters" would probably be close to useless as they would really only teach an admin how to write a simple filter, filters that have long since outgrown their usefulness as vandals have evolved to circumvent these. However, someone should take a stab at it all the same. Just make sure you focus heavily on the TEST FIRST and do not enable any preventative actions until the user has thoroughly tested it and perhaps had it peer reviewed. –xeno^talk 14:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be even more useful would be instructions for noobie admins on how to understand what edit filter reports mean, and how to deal with such reports on AIV (or wherever). I know I would! Stephen! ^Coming... 15:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. I'm still not sure how to deal with AIV reports where edits have been disallowed. Can you be blocked for edits you were never allowed to make in the first place? TNXMan 17:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Others may disagree, but I would say "Yes, definitely." After all, if it weren't for the EF they would have made that edit, there can be little argument over that. EF baiting? Possible I suppose, maybe a slight exception to the rule. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 18:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit filter reports people to AIV? I think a help page would be useful to this old admin, nevermind new ones... J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr.Z-Man's bot reports users who have tripped certain edit filters to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2. I've blocked hundreds of Grawp socks caught this way who haven't made any edits. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It's the EF, not precognition. Protonk (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The EF has been prone to minority reports though. –xeno^talk 15:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Valentine de Saint-Point

Resolved

"Valentine de Saint-Point" Should Redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_de_Sainte_Point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acr8tiv (talk • contribs) 06:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Moved to correct name. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 07:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved admin issuing block

An admin, User:ArnoldReinhold (who signs as "agr") has been involved in debates and editing around Heaven and Earth (book). He just blocked another editor, User:William M. Connolley, who has a different view on the issues surrounding this book. It's somewhat ironic that WMC is under an arbcom case for blocking while involved and now has been blocked by what appears to be an involved admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide diffs that tell the complete story so that inquiring administrators don't have to work so hard to research it themselves? Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to basically come down to this. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There's also a larger chunk of text being disputed.[17] - Bilby (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this was a poorly-issued block by an involved admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Sure. Here's Reinhold arguing his POV based on a definition in a Wikipedia article[18][19] -- and of course Wikipedia (or any open wiki) is not a RS. Admins, of all people, should know that. Here's Reinhold removing a well-sourced and attributed edit.[20] WP:BLP doesn't say that we can't include material critical of a living person, but that such material must be carefully sourced -- as it was here. The most charitable explanation is that Reinhold is not familiar with the policies he is supposed to be enforcing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Arnold has also blocked Ratel (talk · contribs), another user who appears to be involved in this dispute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an involved admin. Cla68 (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being involved he has not blocked anyone on the other "side" of the dispute, despite the fact that there was plenty of to-and-fro by all concerned. This doesn't look good. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c x3)Wow, that is a terrible block. He is obviously an involved party to the dispute. Calling that a BLP violation is quite a stretch. Putting something in the "See also" section does not mean that we are labeling the subject of the article with it, it just means its a related topic. Mr.Z-man 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is already consensus here to undo the block and give agr a warning. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked William M. Connolley for now, and, if no-one objects, will unblock Ratel shortly. I do not object to my actions being overturned if an uninvolved admin sees fit. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now unblocked Ratel and advised the blocking admin against using the tools to further their position in a dispute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I came to this article via the BLP notice board. I removed material here and in Climate change denial that in my judgement violated BLP. I had no prior involvement in either article. I then participated in both talk pages in an attempt to explain my actions, and help find constructive solutions. Note that I refer to the definition of climate change denial in that article because is clearly suggests that deniers act in bad faith as part of industry sponsored disinformation campaigns. So suggesting someone is a denier by linking to climate change denial is squarely a BLP issue. I've suggested that one way to resolve the BLP problems is to change that definition and participated in subsequent discussions on that point, but have not edited the article itself further. I think a review of Ratel (talk · contribs)'s edits makes clear that he is determined to brand the author of the book in question. As for WMC, when he reverted my edit I went to his talk page and politely asked him to explain his reasons. He blew me off. See [21]. He and Ratel then reinserted the disputed material after requests by other editors to hold off until the matter is resolved on the talk page. I then blocked both for 12 hours for BLP violation and edit warring. I think my actions were appropriate and fall clearly within policy. As for the other editors involved, in the "to adn fro," our BLP policy says disputed material should be removed pending resolution of the issues raised. That's all they did.--agr (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you respond to the editors pointing out you were clearly an involved admin, and as such shouldn't have been the one to make the blocks? Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing something so if anyone can clarify, that would be good. How involved is agr really? I only see two edits on the article, and both were quoted as BLP, which seems to be in response to what was said on the BLP noticeboard. Meanwhile, WMC and Ratel were heavily involved in the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at agr's contribution history, it appears that it is true that he was only involved in the dispute within the last couple of days. So, I don't think he was trying to "win" a content issue that he was historically invested in. He did take a side in the debate over whether the content in question was a BLP violation or not. To be honest, I can't decide who is right on it, because it comes down to whether Global Warming is an established fact or not. If it is, then those who say that it's a bunch of hooey really are deniers. If Global Warming does turn out to be a less severe phenomenon than what many think it is, then the "global warming denier" label will turn out to have been an unfair label. What to do? Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well when there's a dispute over BLP vio, I thought the better way to go about enforcing policy was to at least temporarily remove the material in question (if it is legitimately being dispute, which seems to be the case here)? Also, if he'd used BLP Special Enforcement (which is relatively dead), would we have come to the same result? Again, if anyone clarifies, I'd appreciate it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The blocks were completely out of order, as was the attempt to invoke BLP. It was made clear that there were plenty of other uninvolved admins including me [22], and stated as consensus on BLPN who thought there was no BLP violation and that you were wrong to raise it. As far as I can see you made the blocks because you felt put out that your opinion was not being taken seriously and that sort of reaction is not appropriate conduct for an admin. You should apologise immediately. --BozMo talk 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The intro to Climate change denial says this: "climate change denial usually refers to disinformation campaigns allegedly promoted and funded by groups with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly groups with ties to the energy lobby" (emphasis mine). Linking to that article clearly implies that the author is spreading disinformation for financial gain. This is a BLP issue, and BLP says questionable material should be removed while the material is being discussed. That's what agr did here. WMC and Ratel edit warred to keep the BLP-questionable material while the discussion was ongoing, which is grounds for blocking. Given agr's previous uninvolvement with this topic, what's the problem? ATren (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Only if you totally misinterpret the purpose of see also sections. See also links are not categories. Mr.Z-man 05:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By linking to "denial", there is clearly an implication that the author is a "denier", not a "skeptic", and therefore the author is involved in "disinformation for financial gain". The see also should link to a debate or skeptic page, not the denier page. ATren (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If it were linked in the body or given as a category, yes, in the see also section no. The layout guideline states it well. Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. (emphasis mine). By putting something in the "see also" section, we are not saying "The subject is also this," we are saying "These are also related." Otherwise the phrase "see also" would be completely nonsensical. Mr.Z-man 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to take part in an edit war, then block other involved users. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly it wasn't BLP related material it was the inclusion of a book under "See Also" which implies the book was is related. Also that there was plenty of contrary opinion on a very bad call as being BLP and that the block was made with a block note on WMC's talk page implying annoyance at lack of respect for agr. --BozMo talk 05:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In case it hasn't been linked to here's the BLP discussion. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, it's not about linking to the book from the denial page, it's about linking to the denial page from the book and author pages. ATren (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I was too quick to say that agr was wrong. He appears to have truly thought that he was protecting a BLP from a violation of the policy. The statement that Atren quotes does appear to indicate that it was a BLP violation to include that link in the "see also" section of the article. I now think the block was, arguably, justified. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the sanity check - particularly your second sentence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The "see also links" section of the BLP policy was added just a couple days ago with almost no consensus. William M. Connolley was blocked 8 hours after his last edit to the article, that hardly seems "protective." Mr.Z-man 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

But, WMC almost immediately added the questionable text back in when he was unblocked, so perhaps "protective" applies here. ATren (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's some POV pushing going on. As was suggested at the BLP noticeboard, I don't know why the see also link isn't moved into the aritcle body where the link will be given appropriate context. This looks equivalent to adding criticism to an article on a popular president saying he's socialist, and then using that to justify a see also to the article on socialism. Come on people, grow up. And WMCs refusal to discuss the issue on his take page after a polite request is also rather unseemly. I would say his history of editing articles related to these issues speaks for itself. And Ratel equating the article subject to a Holocaust denier should probably be enough to give any fair minded person pause, whether you think global warming is well established or not. The term denier and denial is loaded and should be used with caution. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Weird days indeed. This one will run and run. Still, I seem to be unblocked now - thanks. agr's original block was absurd, of course. More, the notice left on my talk page was distinctly ambiguous "I have issued a 12 hour block for BLP violations and edit warring" - when I read that, I didn't know who he was talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, since you're unblocked now, could you help out by removing any links to Global warming denial from BLPs which don't include it with the proper context and helping ensure that no one else adds them back? Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether the links should be there is contentious. My view is that this is largely the std skeptic crowd wanting to downplay the unwisdom of the septics. The BLP issue is spurious William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold blocked users over a BLP issue that is brand new, that is, whether or not to have links in the See also sections of pages (any pages, in this case the page was on a book, not a person). The BLP policy was altered only yesterday, without much discussion, specifically because of this content dispute (at Heaven and Earth (book)). ArnoldReinhold was an involved admin, who had entered the fray with his opinions and done some reverting. He should not have blocked other editors over the issue, especially when the point under discussion is rather murky (ie climate change denial is a term not exclusively reserved for organized, funded disinformation campaigns but may also reasonably be said to relate to anyone who is lobbying publicly to block AGW legislation or claim that AGW is a "scam" or wrong or dishonest, as the person in question has indeed done). I think ArnoldReinhold should resile from further involvement in this complex topic since he did not even know clearly what AGW meant diff when he arrived from the BLP noticeboard. ► RATEL ◄ 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The BLP guidelines are not new and adding see alsos to cast the subject of a biographical article in a negative light is not helpful. If the wikilink is worthwhile, include it in the body of the text. The holocaust is a historical event so it not particularly similar to global warming which involves a lot of modeling, theorizing, and predictions. There are differences of opinion over the science and how best to protect the environment and people who would be affected by climatic changes and atmospheric changes. While some editors seem to have very strong opinions and perhaps feel that this is a critical issue, we are still bound by our policies to fairly and accurate write up an encyclopedic article that reflects the content in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of events

• On 10 September 09 (yesterday), agr responded to a BLP noticeboard discussion by removing what he considered a BLP vio as an uninvolved admin (at 10:41). He also attempted to discuss this matter at the noticeboard, on the article talk page. WMC reverted this action at 11:04 as being a non-vio. Agr attempted to discuss this with WMC, and brought this to WMC's and Ratel's attention at 13:16. WMC was clearly unresponsive to the merits of the concern at 14:01. At 19:53, another editor reverted back, urging WMC to wait for the issue to be settled as it is disputed, but WMC edit-warred again at 20:11 with the summary "why should I wait for the issue to be settled and not you? that kind of edit comment really winds me up guv".
• On 11 September 09 (today), this version was reverted again at 02:49 with the summary "you should wait because WP:BLP explicitly states that you must". Ratel again edit warred, inserting the disputed material at 03:40. Between 04:25 and 04:30, agr blocked both Ratel and WMC for edit-warring and BLP, and reinstated the version which had no disputed BLP issues. Several minutes later, the above discussion began.
• I hope that covers that major bits. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline is at least one day off. Since this is related and about 24 hours earlier than your first item in the timeline. Now i'm not saying that agr is involved (i simply do not have an opinion), but he has certainly inserted himself into the discussion on other levels than just the BLP issue. (see Talk:Climate change denial) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

More:

• After this discussion began, I removed the link from Plimer's BLP with the comment this is still under discussion in multiple venues, and it has BLP implications. Why don't we just leave it out for another day or two until the discussion comes to a close?
• WMC, after being unblocked, added the link back in with Why don't we just leave it in for another day or two until the discussion comes to a close?. BLP policy clearly indicates that questioned material is to be removed while being discussed. ATren (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note, when I re-inserted the disputed See also link to Climate change denial, I was doing it in order to allow readers to follow the accusation levelled at Plimer in the edit:

Lyn Allison, leader of the Australian Democrats from 2004 to 2008, called Plimer the "pet denialist" of Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, and accused Plimer of "happily cashing in on his speaking tours and his book".cite

Now please explain why, when a book or person is accused in a RS of something, that topic may not be see alsoed? Thanks. Note that many people have accused Plimer of being a denier, because he is, and his book has been called The Climate Change Denier's Manifesto. ► RATEL ◄ 07:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Many people accuse Obama of being a socialist. Do we include socialism in Obama's "see also" section? ATren (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? If it is raised throughout the article on Obama, then yes, we serve the readers and help them expand knowledge. The entire book under discussion is a long diatribe of denialism, so really, the See also to Climate change denial could hardly be more apposite. ► RATEL ◄ 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because we have to be careful about impugning or casting aspersions in biographical articles. A link to socialism in the appropriate section of a politician's article where that criticism or point of view is discussed would be fine, but a see also isn't reasonable. It would be like adding a see also to "torture" for Dick Cheney or "Manslaughter" for Ted Kennedy. And part of the problem is that the denial article is so one sided. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I found two more instances of Climate change denial being included in see also sections for BLPs and removed them [23] [24], plus in a documentary movie [25]. Cla68 (talk) 07:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: (a) Saying that See Alsos are "purely navigational links", or that the layout guideline says subjects may be only "peripherally related", does not somehow magically make BLP concerns disappear in terms of the implications the average reader may draw from unannotated links. (b) in response to this dispute which I saw at WP:BLPN, I BOLDly added a section on See Also Sections to WP:BLP [26], because I thought it helpful to clarify how the spirit of BLP applies to See Alsos; no policy extension was involved (unlike the BLP "External Links" section which refers to a "higher standard"). This has now been reverted and is under discussion. (c) I confess (oops) that I'd only read the BLPN discussion, so it's only now I realise in this case we're talking about a See Also link at the top of a section, not a See Also section. I don't think that invalidates my BLP addition, because it was motivated by this issue having come up before; but a See Also link is somewhat different. In this case, it seems like an attempt to "have your cake and eat it": a section title that says "scepticism", and a main article See Also which links to denial and not skepticism (which would be Global warming controversy). If denialism can't be justified in either the section title or the body text (from what people are saying, it would be justifiable in the body text - but it's currently not mentioned), it's hard to see its use in this way as BLP-compatible. Rd232 ^talk 07:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See Also clearly means "related". It is clearly possible to defame by adding "See Also" (See Also "Lying" for example), but adding a nearby topic does not imply that the individual comes under the category in any way, it just implies adjacency. It implies there is a relation and if there obviously is a relation, discussed that way in the article this is not a defamation. See also to groups to which the BLP might commonly be mistakenly included is completely ok. In this regard I think that edits like [27] by Cla68 are somewhere between misguided, vandalism or opportunistic agenda pushing and this notice board should not be used as a justification for them. --BozMo talk 09:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

" a nearby topic does not imply that the individual comes under the category in any way, it just implies adjacency." I have to disagree. Importantly, it implies that the individual either falls into the category or is related to it in some other way, and that ambiguity can create BLP concerns. In particular, just because a handful of editors know exactly what the See Also means and refers to, we shouldn't think that a skimming reader will see it in the same way. Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Inserting negative See also links is a cheap way to get in one more dig at the subject. For this article I suggested a alternative way here to link to Climate change denial that in my opinion doesn't raise BLP issues. It's been ignored so far.

At one point during the discussions, Ratel refers to climate change as "arguably the most important issue facing mankind today." [28] To the extent that's true, we owe our readers articles that conform to our very highest standards. Wikipedia has a huge audience that comes to us for information on controversial subjects. Allowing Wikipedia to become an attack site directed against all who question the consensus view only damages our credibility.

I've clearly stirred up a hornets nest here and I very much appreciate the editors who have come to my defense after initial charges of improper blocking. If the community expects the strong mandate of WP:BLP to be enforced, admins who attempt in good faith to do so need to be given the benefit of the doubt. But for now I will let other admins take charge and I'll take a break on this issue.--agr (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thanks to AR who didn't actually stir up the hornets nest but rather walked into the middle of the swarm. I for one, having followed this from the start, believe that AR was acting in nothing but good faith and directly out of concern for WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• If denier is defined in such a way as to state or imply that the person is acting in bad faith on behalf of financial interest (as opposed to someone who is a good faith skeptic) then the term denier should not be used in any article unless there are reliable sources proving, or at least alleging, that the person is in fact acting in bad faith at the behest of financial interest. Otherwise, call them a skeptic. Thatcher 12:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  I completely agree and this is the position I have been arguing as well. Regarding the see also links, I think the most reasonable position is that if Plimer meets the criteria to be included in Climate change denial then put him there and add the see also links. If he does not, then leave him out and remove the see also links. That is clean and simple. I have asked Ratel to provide a WP:RS news article, not an opinion piece, that levels the charge that Plimer is working with or for some special interest that has a stake in disinforming the public regarding AGW. Thus far no such source has been forthcoming and until it is provided I believe that the correct course of action is not only clear but explicitly demanded by WP:BLP. --GoRight (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  Huh? Since when is it a requirement that the person or subject be desciribed specifically in the article that is linked via "See also"? That breaks with the whole idea of a See also which is a link to related subjects - not inclusive subjects. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC) not to mention that climate change denial doesn't have to be for a "special interest" (which is a related but not relevant discussion here) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell that it is probably not a BLP problem, but an editorial problem. You would not put see also:Socialism into Barack Obama, nor would you put see also:Matthew Shepherd into an article on a politician who opposes same-sex marriage. It is, at a minimum, misleading in a particular POV direction to put see also:Global warming denial (which is defined as bad faith) into an article about someone who may have good faith skepticism. The see also functions in somewhat the same manner as a category, to direct readers to other articles. I don't believe it follows the principles of neutral point of view to label people as "global warming deniers" --which is defined in an extremely negative way -- unless you have reliable sources to indicate such. Use category and see alsos for Climate change skeptic instead. Thatcher 20:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like the block might have been best referred to another admin to deal with. But no long-term harm done. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to make a couple of suggestions about how this sort of situation can be avoided in the future:

1. It's stupid to fight over "See also" links. The person who pulls out of that fight first is the winner.
2. Saying something is a BLP violation does not make it a BLP violation, particularly in light of feedback from uninvolved editors at WP:BLP/N contradicting the assertion that BLP is involved here. I don't think that the name-calling about "denialism" necessarily belongs in the article, but that's a content decision, not a BLP decision - the fact that some notable people have applied the "denialist" label is reasonably sourced and attributed in the text. By the same token, it would not be a BLP violation to describe Obama as a "socialist" in his article - it would just be a poor editorial content decision.
3. I note that this is User:ArnoldReinhold's fourth applied block in several years as an admin. I would suggest that there is an actual learning curve to adminship. Block-and-reverts of established editors for arguable borderline violations of tricky policies on controversial articles are no simple matter even for an admin experienced in such areas. At the very least, a sanity check from other admins would have been advisable under the circumstances - all the more so since the BLP justification was a bit unilateral in the face of uninvolved input at WP:BLP/N contradicting agr's rationale.
4. The line that "if you expect enforcement of BLP you'll support me" rings hollow. Aside from the feedback at WP:BLP/N to the effect that this was not an actionable BLP issue, admins do actually have mechanisms of support if they want to stick their necks out like this. See WP:BLPSE. Notice no one has used it. Well, I have - in the one case I can remember where I both reverted and blocked an editor committing what I thought were BLP violations. You can't ignore the existing mechanisms of support (BLP/N, BLPSE) and then pose as a martyr to BLP enforcement. Next time, try the existing mechanisms first.

Just my 2 cents, by way of post-mortem. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 216.125.91.130

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh  19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cross namespace redirects

I've just come across this category- surely, the vast, vast majority of these are completely illegitimate? I was under the impression we only redirected from the mainspace with "subspace" terms, like WP:, T: and CAT:? Surely, to take a few at random, Architecture of Slovenia should not redirect to a category, and ANE Resources should not redirect to a portal page? Would anyone have any objection to me giving this a major cleanout later tonight/this weekend? J Milburn (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the new version of WP:CSD#R2 to make it broader, I agree with you, but should note these deletions are controversial. Generally redirects to other content areas (to Category and Portal pages) are almost always kept at WP:RFD. Sometimes you can get a redirect to a maintanence category or a Wikipedia page deleted, but even that is iffy. Also, the policy against CNRs at WP:CNR failed and redirects do not qualify for PROD. So my suggestion would be to either re-target the redirects or go to RFD. MBisanz ^talk 15:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Some of these aren't even cross-namespace redirects... –xeno^talk 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm cleaning 'em up. Here's my favourite so far. –xeno^talk 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're trying to clear them up, try using Wikipedia:Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects instead of the cat, its much better--Jac16888^Talk 17:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm just fixing the ones that actually aren't cross-namespace redirects. –xeno^talk 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha--Jac16888^Talk 17:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Serious question- why are these deletions controversial? Is there something I'm missing? J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So wait, according to CSD, redirects from the article namespace to categories, portals, templates and Wikipedia pages are legitimate? We're free to redirect mainspace titles to pretty much whereever we like? Something (or someone) somewhere seriously needs fixing... What next, including WikiProjects on dab pages? J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the canonical debate reference is Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/July_2006#Various_cross-name_space_redirects, from which the lead of WP:CNR was written. I tested the climate last fall at WP:RFD to see if it could become policy for deletion and was only able to demonstrate consensus for non-category/portal/template/project pages, which resulted in the consensus discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_31#Changing_R2. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No. CNR's which are to cat, portals, templates and wp space are not "legitimate". They are simply not so illegitimate that they are subject to speedy deletion. If you feel a particular CNR is useless, duplicative, misleading or otherwise disruptive, you can nominate it for deletion at RfD. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Angsc09

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Woody (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

uninvolved admin needed to close one WP:AE request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev got stuck for days waiting for a clarification from Arbcom. The clarification has been done and the request should be closed in some way or other. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

Mifter (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Action taken against trolls - they are all ignored as all good trolls should be. Any remaining content dispute should be taken to a DR forum.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

This is for the third time that I am bringing the issue to the notice of Administrators. User By78 has removed Dr.Manmohan Singh's image with that of CCP head Hu Jintao. Similarly information about the Brahmos-II Hypersonic missile has been removed from the cruise missile page.Bcs09 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the user, then file a WP:RFC/U if you can't work it out. lifebaka++ 13:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't switching out an image inappropriately simple vandalism? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I do the same?Bcs09 (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to get blocked for vandalism. I see no need for an RFC here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins, from my observations of By78's history, I find that he is a troll. He is not interested in contribution or proper discussion. This useless little troll need to be removed immediately.Bcs09 (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See [29] for why I replaced Mr. Singh's picture. Do you have anything else? By78 (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with an image of all G-20 world leaders. Now don't go and revert it to Hu Jintao's image.Bcs09 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the troll

• By78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user By78 is a troll and the little troll need to be removed immediately.Bcs09 (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't appear to me to have done anything blockable. I'll leave open for another admin to consider. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Stifle. Perhaps you could provide some diffs that illustrate your point? TNXMan 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this issue really require 2 separate sections? It's discussed a few sections above this one.--Atlan (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Combined. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 14:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the most funny part. He seems to be doing the right thing by sticking to rules. The trick is simple. First bring up a wrong fucked up report and then claim the other party is wrong thereby indulging in disruption and vandalism rather than contribution. No argument is gonna work as evident from the long argument User Vedant had with this fellow. User Vedant has explained this fellow as the one whose "contributions" aren't really vandalism per se or disruptive as he IS following the rules of Wikipedia but a look at his edits will reveal his burning hatred for India. In addition, while he hides behind the anonymity of the internet (i.e. with respect to his off-Wiki accounts with the title By78), its very clear he is NOT a neutral editor. I have no objection to his legitimate edits but many of his edits are not neutral. I can explain this with a small example. First he get's a report lets say a BBC report in 2003 said that the trial of Shivalik class frigate has started.[30] This was a wrong report. But this guy will utilize that report and change the status in Shivalik class page from construction to trials. In the discussion to validate his point he will bring in more duplicates of the report from other newspaper sources and claim that he is right. The Administrators will fall for it. The change sticks. I even wondered if he is one of those Chinese internet spin doctor. Is there any Wikipedia policy to monitor such activities, wherein the state itself modifies information to suit their needs?Bcs09 (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the admins asked for examples of diffs that you consider biased, and I am curious as to what those are myself. So far, I have not seen you provide any. It's not rocket science to prove someone is a troll, when all of my edits have been saved and for all to see. By78 (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far as to say By78 is a troll but he has been a major disruption in the past and I do not believe that he edits in Good Faith. A simple review of his recent edits would reveal his bias. In addition he has been reported many times for making racist or personal attacks against other forum members and also making extremely biased revisions to pages related to India. While I agree with some his edits as they are perfectly valid, it is very clear that this user is a disruption. He was also previously reported in the incidents noticeboard by me (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Edits_by_User_By78). Some of his racist or inflammatory comments include:

• referring to Mumbai as "Slumbai"
• Posing the following questions to Chanakyathegreat : "Where did you pull your numbers about India? Out of the arse of a holy cow?" As he probably well knows, the cow is a sacred animal in Hinduism and he deliberately wanted to be confrontational.
• asking Chanakyathegreat if he got his ideas out of the Bhagavad Gita and accusing him of living in the Dharavi Slum
• Calling GSMR an Aryan German (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive65#User:by78)
• Challenging my sanity and assuming I act in bad faith (see: The incidents noticeboard)
• Accusing me of being Chanakyathegreat (see: My talk page and the incidents noticeboard)

In addition to this, he engages in various edits about India-related articles that aim to portray that country in a negative manner (not a neutral one). For example, he uploaded 20 pictures of Mumbai slums to the Wikimedia commons and attempted to paste them to this article. A look at his contributions will reveal that he has also removed pictures of India in many different articles and has replaced them with other pictures under the rather innocent caption "Changed to a better picture". While I don't disagree with some of these changes, it appears to me like this user engages in disruptive behaviour. In addition, he made numerous changes to the Indian Road Network article and has currently engaged me in a revert war even though my changes were valid. In his revisions, he moved all the issues to the introduction section of the article which is not what the introduction section is for. After that, I moved all the issues to the Issues section of the article where they belong and this user attempted to revert this. It was after this point that I showed him that my changes were perfectly valid when he attempted to introduce the same information on the Introduction section AGAIN. If that isn't disruption then I don't know what is. I can certainly provide many other examples of this user's bad behaviour if required to do so. Vedant (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe he is a Chinese Internet Spin Doctor either, a Google Search on By78 or "Eendiah" will reveal more than enough information about this User. He is Bo Yu of Columbus, Ohio though he vehemently denies these accusations of being Anti-India as in his own words he has "I have nothing but the utmost respect for its peoples and cultures". Ofcourse that contrasts greatly with his Edits and Comments on Wikipedia such as this total mockery of the Indian accent : "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie!". Vedant (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not again, CattleBruiser2008 of Youtube fame. What's that on your Youtube profile page? Let me quote, "Also, to those of you who think that China videos show that I am anti-China, I am NOT. I am anti-Chinese nationalism which is very often anti-India", and "ALL INDIANS ARE THE BEST". Since you keep bringing up this Bo Yu character, then I suppose it is relevant that we inject your own Youtube account into this debate. Or, we could just stick to the issues involving Wikipedia? Your call, CattleBruiser2008.

Correction - I am CattleBruiser2008, not Vedant. I don't deny that I oppose people on YouTube who dismiss India's growth, and it so happens that many of them are either Chinese or pro-Chinese. GSMR (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't have an account on Youtube but you may feel free to try and link one to me even though I just stated I don't have one. No GSMR, you're wrong and I will now make the admission is that all three of these accounts are sockpuppets for Chanakyathegreat. Infact all users on Wikipedia that are from India are all sockpuppets for Chankyathegreat. Darn Bo Yu of Columbus, Ohio, you have ruined my master plan which was to systematically edit all India related pages with glowing information praising India. Ofcourse if you actually LOOKED at my edits which I don't believe you have, you would notice I have criticized India and Indian sources as well but maybe your racial prejudice prevents from seeing that. People like you are destined to doom Wikipedia by turning it into a political platform to launch subtle attacks on people/countries/ideas that you don't like. If it makes you feel any better By78, I also don't believe that India will be a superpower by 2020 or that India is in the same league as China and I have never claimed to. Like GSMR, I do believe that India's potential for growth is great but she has some core problems to address before she can progress at the same rate as some of her other Asian neighbours. You may now resume launching personal and racial attacks against site users now. Vedant (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like something for dispute resolution. I suggest the parties take it up there, and this thread be closed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a case of two parties both trying to act in the best interests of the site. It is a case of one party engaging in disruptive edits and vandalism while the other party is attempting to stop it. By78 has demonstrated his disregard for the rules of the site as evidenced by his numerous warnings for racial and personal attacks against other users and blatant vandalism of India related pages.Vedant (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While platitudes are nice, but specifics are better. Where are the diffs based on which you accuse me of disruptive editing? By78 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Read my first post, there are plenty of examples. Vedant (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have in fact read your post, but I am still waiting for "diffs". "Diffs" as in going to an article's history, choosing two entries, hitting compare button, and linking the result back to this page to demonstrate that my edits are biased. Let me help you out a bit: on what substantive ground do you challenge my edits for India Road Network, Arihant Class Submarine, etc.? By78 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First off I would just like to make it clear to administrators that I have been only marginally involved in disputes with by78 (on Wikipedia, at least). But keep in mind that an "edit" is anything that is listed as one's contributions, whether on an article, a talk page, or a user talk page. I have reminded Vedant that by78's edits (to articles) do not go against Wikipedia's editing policies but I do not believe that they are in good faith. Heck, these edits of mine [31] [32] were not, I admit, in good faith, but were made because I was browsing by78's contributions and I merely sought to counter his bias. That does not make them any less valid, but I, unlike him, have never engaged in personal attacks against other users on Wikipedia. I have a clean record and administrators who have browsed my contributions know this, why else would they have granted me rollback rights? GSMR (talk) 01:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may also make it clear, I never challenged By78's edits on articles like the Arihant and the following is an excerpt of mine from the talk page of that article:

I don't think there is much point in reasoning with By78, he seems to do as he pleases. However Bcs09, even if By78 is biased and engages in pushing his POV, the claim that Arihant is reactorless seems credible as Indian sources have also reported on this (see : http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?title=Arihant%20does%20not%20have%20working%20reactor%20yet&artid=Wf2A1NFGj1g=&type=). Just so that it is absolutely clear, I am not supporting By78 on his quest to "quash Indian triumphalism" and I certainly think he promotes his hateful ideas off Wikipedia but I am defending the claim that Arihant is reactorless. Unless we have it from verifiable sources that Arihant has a nuclear reactor onboard, I think the article should remain as is. The reports on launch day should not be considered 100% reliable since the Indian government was particularly ambiguous with regards to the reactor being installed or not and the Indian media has a tendency to embellish and distort certain facts. Then again I suppose its better to have free media as opposed to state-controlled propaganda-spewing media that almost always distort and manipulate facts. Vedant (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't challenge his legitimate edits which to me seem perfectly valid. I do challenge his introduction of POV into India-related articles which has been my point all along. It is also abundantly clear that he has a history of confrontation with other users regarding this. If By78 has inability grasping this fact then I suggest he re-read this section a couple of times. Vedant (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum I will add that my basis for challenging By78's edits on articles like the Indian road network are CLEARLY documented on that article's talk page. I have looked at many other road network articles and nothing else seems to have the kind of blatant POV pushing that By78 attempted to introduce into the Indian Road Network article. I do not believe By78 edits in good faith and when it comes to him, past experience has taught me to assume bad faith when dealing with him. If there are any doubts, a simple review of this user's "contributions" will reveal that he does act in bad faith. He may be editing within the policies set forth by Wikipedia but there is a difference between having the right to do a thing and doing the right thing. This is a distinction I don't think By78 cares to acknowledge whether deliberately or out of sheer ignorance. Vedant (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, since you do not deny that India's roads are dilapidated, then what is wrong with adding a few words (37 words) to that effect in the intro paragraph. Frankly, your stuffing of everything negative into a short section at the very end of the article while refusing to mention it elsewhere is bizarre. Well, you are right about one thing: the discussion page does document well our ongoing disagreement, and I would encourage everyone to read it for him/herself, at this convenient link [33]. By78 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I DO challenge your edits on articles like the Indian road network. You are pushing POV into the article. Does the introduction section present a good overview of the article? Yes. It points out that a lot of the roads in the network are unpaved and that lane capacity is low. It also indicates that the maintenance of the network has been underfunded. You are using data from a 2002 source and you have repeatedly deleted that it is a 2002 source in your "contributions". Vedant (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Neglecting Administrative warnings, User By78 has indulged in editing the Arihant class submarine page. There is a discussion going on in the talk page, but he is more interested in reverting the page. Admins take note. Bcs09 (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Administrators, I would bring to your notice the trolling activities of By78. In Arihant page, he is asking unnecessary questions like is this the Arihant after posting a Chinese submarine with a Chinese flag atop it. These are clear proof of he being a troll and action need to be taken against him.Bcs09 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 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.

Link disallowed on talk page

Can someone direct me to the answer why a link to a blog would not be allowed from a talk page? I would not be so keen for an answer unless quite frankly a user made it clear that I was not supposed to know.

This is the issue: I wrote the article for Munchausen by Internet. I was directed to some bot-deleted links from the Amanda Baggs article, where there is some blog speculation--which I realize is not a reliable source, but I'm not asking about that--that Baggs, an autism activist who gained her fame by YouTube and other internet forums, has faked her symptoms. Whether she has is not my concern. After I found out about this I attempted to post about it on my talk page, here, where I was not allowed by Wikimedia software to post the link to said blogs. If you Google Amanda Baggs fraud, the top results are the links I am referring to.

The error message reports that it has triggered the Spam filter, saying The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://a u t i s m f r a u d.b l o g s p o t.c o m (spaced so that I may post it here). I asked why this was on the Spam blacklist talk page, here. No response has been given. I just tried it again in my Sandbox with the same result.

What prompted me to post this here is that my questions, somewhere, attracted GetDumb (talk · contribs), with whom I have had no previous interaction, that as you can see, has told me on my talk page and then SandyGeorgia's that I am tempting WP:LEGAL, and WP:CIVIL, and just now, to accept it and move on. Why, nothing more could impel me to bring it to everyone's attention. So here I am.

• So, is this an issue with blogspot? If so, why is the Post Secret article possible? And why is this necessary for talk pages?
• Is this an issue with the contents of these blogs? Because I find that quite outrageous and you may point me in the direction to get this rescinded immediately. As I stated on Sandy's page, if links are allowed to snuff films and porn sites, these words seem relatively harmless as they don't divulge the formula for Timothy McVeigh's bomb or the password for the Pentagon's mainframe computer. The links are forbidden on talk pages. Which means that editors are not allowed to discuss the reliability of sources. Well, they can, but what's even more stupid, I have to space the link or just tell you where to find it in Google. That makes no sense at all.

Your clarification is appreciated. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• What does this have to do w/ Post Secret? Protonk (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Moni was testing the hypothesis that the autism fraud blog was blocked because it was hosted by blogspot, and finding fault with this thesis because Post Secret, which is hosted at the same platform, is allowed.  Skomorokh  18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I thought as much but I couldn't really tell and I didn't want to give a blase answer to the wrong question. Protonk (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Moni, I strongly suspect that this linking is prohibited because at some time in the past, someone was linking to the blog widely and inappropriately. I doubt the content has anything to do with it. There are linkbots that revert links to blogs, Myspace and so on, but that is a separate issue from technically prohibiting editors to post the link in the first place. The way to get the link permitted would be to appeal to the admins controlling the spam blacklist (it might be a local one, or one at meta). If memory serves, that is not an easy thing to accomplish.  Skomorokh  18:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there someone who can change that "strongly suspect" to bingo!? The tumbleweeds are currently blowing about the Spam blacklist talk page. Is there a venue where someone might actually respond? --Moni3 (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same sbl talk page? I would just list the url at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. The AN/I business was more than a year ago. Someone will likely remove it if you ask there. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You can ask the folks at the SBM, but I think blogspot is blocked generally. AFAIK the procedure is that individual links to article subjects or blogs of subject matter experts or notable folks get whitelisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I suspect that post-secret is whitelisted or that we only link to the domain name post secret owns (And not the blogspot domain name). Protonk (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The link is blocked as part of the spam blacklist and the reasons are linked in the entry there (search for "\bautismfraud\.blogspot\.com\b" without the quotation marks). That's the why, if you want to look into removing it, the page here gives some options. Camw (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can the Spam blacklist not distinguish between article space, article talk page, editor talk page, etc? I can understand why blogs are removed per RS and SPS, but I do not understand why they are forbidden on talk pages. It serves only to make discussing an issue more difficult. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the blacklist is site wide. Blogs are not forbidden from talk pages, a quick look through the links on the blacklist show that this one was blocked as it was being continually spammed by multiple editors. Camw (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above.

As a result of this case:

1. The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct.
3. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages.
4. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hmm... this is just a suggestion, but I clicked on the "Discuss this" link just above my comment, and I found myself directed to the tail end of the WMC case. I'm not even going to waste my time reading what this case was about, because the "Discuss this" link dropped me right into the middle of a series of rants by User:ChildofMidnight comparing Wikipedia admins to Nazi Brownshirts. I'm not sure how you all ended up having such a high minded, civil, and respectful debate, but you might want to spend some time reflecting on whether or not this looks even slightly legitimate, or intellectual. Were I someone looking to ridicule Wikipedia in the press, that is exactly the type of undisciplined inanity that I would highlight as an example of the joke Wikipedia is quickly becoming. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rise up, Wikipedians!!! Show your support at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedians_supporting_the_restoration_of_the_mop_to_William_M._Connolley. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy discussion

With reference to item 5 above - I have created a relevant discussion page at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Arbcom_directed_discussion_-_Policy_on_non-consensual_topic_or_page_bans. Manning (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trump Soho

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh  01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user involved in AfD

I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Schuler a couple of days ago, and an IP editor signing himself as Joseph A. Spadaro participated almost immediately, and has been participating throughout the AfD. It has now come to my attention that User:Joseph A. Spadaro has been indefinitely blocked by Jclemens for BLP violations. While this article is largely about a deceased person, there is considerable information included about the surviving family members of the subject, so there are still BLP elements in this article. Could one or more administrators please review this AfD and determine what should be done here? Given the extent to which Spadaro has participated, I feel any result (whether keep, delete, or no consensus) would be tainted, and I believe other participating editors are likely to feel the same way. Thank you. Risker (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As a side note, a checkuser query indicates that the IP signing his name as Mr. Spadaro is the same person who edited as User:Joseph A. Spadaro. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As a participating editor in the AfD I confirm that I feel the same way. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

• I have blocked both IPs: 64.252.26.82 and 64.252.72.220 for 72 hours as they both appear to be being used to avoid a block, I didn't indef block as I considered this an interim measure and I didn't have time to research the IPs further. Anyone is free to adjust or remove the blocks as necessary.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anon continues to edit under IP 64.252.72.160. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

Regardless of AFD that article is an embarrassment in it's current state and people with knowledge of the event should take a look and try and clean it up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some action being taken. This person has been hiding behind his IP address to taunt registered users. What I think is worse, however, is his 1,000+ word responses to each person who weighed in on the Elizabeth Schuler/ Parkway crash article. It's a close question about whether the incident meets Wikipedia standards of notability, and although I don't at all like the way it is written, I think that the article could be kept. When you have someone who dominates the discussion the way this fellow has done, the focus shifts from "should the article be kept or deleted", to "do I agree or disagree with what this person is doing". I agree that the discussion has been tainted. If he is blocked, then I think that it's only fair that the discussion be relisted without his comments and without our responses to his comments. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As another defender of the article's right to exist in some form, I agree that the IP user's contributions to the AFD have probably hurt it more than helped. I would like to see it re-listed entirely. (I would also like to work on significantly improving the article, as has been discussed at the AFD, but I'm simply reluctant to invest the energy when the article could be deleted any second; I believe the AFD was due for closure yesterday.) Propaniac (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – Attention given. Thanks! The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

...could use some attention. Thanks, folks! The V-Man ^{(Said · Done)} 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No backlog at the moment. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Full protection on Catherine Crier

Catherine Crier was full-protected on May 30 due to extremely libelous edits by Grawp socks, which have been oversighted. This action was more than justified since this vandal has a history of using sleeper socks to evade semi-protection. However, it's been four months--it would seem to me to be more than long enough, and no Grawp socks have shown their faces on the talk page (which has also been semi-protected). I therefore ask that the protection level be dropped down to semi-protection, with a commented-out warning that any vandalism to the article will be reverted and blocked on sight. If Deskana (who carried out the full-protection) or any oversighter objects, I'm willing to withdraw this proposal, since they may be in possession of more information about this that can't be posted on-wiki. Blueboy96 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should approach Deskana in the first instance in view of his edit summary when protecting the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did several times via email in the last few months with no response. Blueboy96 01:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this article full-protected.

See wikien-l for a bit of background, and that was before Grawp involved himself in this mess.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... does anyone know if the case is still pending? If it is, I could understand leaving full-protection on this until it's resolved. It's not exactly the Wiki way, but under the circumstances, there's really no other way to keep Grawp and friends from inserting that garbage in the article. Chalk up yet another one to Grawp. Blueboy96 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is something full flagged protection would be perfect for. I hope we get it soon. — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was seriously just about to unprotect it, then Risker sent me a message on IRC pointing to this thread. In short, I'll unprotect it, so can people try to keep an eye on it? I'll keep my eye on it too. I apologise for not responding to anyone who attempted to contact me... I'm going to try to ramp up the activity level a bit. --Deskana, (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

watchlisted. –xeno^talk 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

Can I just get a few opinions on my line of thinking expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of micronations (2nd nomination)? Neither an urgent issue, nor an administrator action. I just want to get an idea of whether or not I'm way off base. Specifically, I'm looking at the the similarity between this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anthems of micronations. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the above constitute canvassing? Edison (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it seems to be neutrally-worded and is a limited posting (just here, right?). It's also a non-partisan audience and transparent. I'm not sure it's appropriate for this venue though (as mentioned by OP). WP:EAR would maybe be better. –xeno^talk 22:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer, again

- -

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

EdChem (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Note: Tony Sideaway reverted this from here. He should not be reverting other people's edits from the AN board. If he does it again, somebody please block him.) Cla68 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bah, what nonsense. This message serves no purpose as it was moved to ANI (where the discussion has been closed by now). Asking for blocks is OTT and reverting Tony was pointless.--Atlan (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There was a link to this discussion on the talk page of an article, so if the discussion was moved to a different page a detour marker needed to be here. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3

AN3 could use a few admins' attention should they have a minute. Cheers and good night! Nja²⁴⁷ 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There was some guy who used to clear backlogs there pretty regularly... William something or other. Interesting fella. Whatever happened to him? :P MastCell ^Talk 00:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

He got H-Conned. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole thing stinks. Nja²⁴⁷ 05:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of administrative access

Pursuant to ArbCom procedure for immediate temporary desysop, Pastor Theo (talk · contribs) is to have its sysop bit removed immediately as a reincarnation of a community banned editor.

Concurring: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, Rlevse, Wizardman

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:Erik9bot going haywire!

It's been untagging a bunch of articles belonging to WP Journals, making edits then reverting itself and so on. Please block that bot! Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the bot owner. Manning (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Erik9 plans to restart the task. The reason he had the bot rollingback all the edits (and removing the WikiProject tags he had added) was due to some mistakes. See User_talk:Erik9bot#needs-infobox.3Dyes - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The bot is quite under control. Some edits made pursuant to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 11 had to be rolled back, as I had neglected to recognize templates other than Infobox journal as infoboxes. All rollbacks performed by this bot are effectuated using a mass rollback script, under my direct supervision. The bot's rollback feature has only used to revert edits made by the bot, or myself. The Wikiproject tags, which the bot initially added, will be restored momentarily. As the bot was not making the edits of which you complain at the time you filed this report, it would have been more helpful for you to post a comment on my talk page or the bot's talk page than to make a frantic request for blocking. Let me remind you, Headbomb, that task 11 was performed at your request; however, under the circumstances, I am highly unlikely to be amenable to similar requests in the future. Erik9 (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikiproject templates (which the bot initially added) have been restored, and the needs-infobox=yes parameter added where appropriate [34]. Erik9 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting User:Boxedor

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh  18:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Create page for James Everett Stanley

I am trying to create a page for the artist James Everett Stanley but I got a notice that that title has been "blacklisted" and only administrators can create that page. Please let me know how to create this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gene Doh (talk • contribs) 20:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems articles with the word "Everett" in them are on the global blacklist. Please create the page at User:Gene Dog/sandbox and an administrator will move it to the correct location. –xeno^talk 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This silly entry is still there? --NE2 01:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I queried FT2 about it as he is the one that requested it (awaiting response). I think this was pre-AF, so perhaps if the threat is still there, we can pen a filter... –xeno^talk 15:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Userrights cleanup

There are some userrights situations which need an uninvolved admin to look at them:

• Mythdon (talk · contribs) - Blocked for six months, still has rollback
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) - Desysopped admin, should have autoreviewer

Thanks MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the first instance, the users' use of rollback was not at issue so I don't really see why removing it is necessary. –xeno^talk 22:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

In the second instance, WMC does not appear to create new articles with any frequency (two net-new articles in the last 12 months). And not to put him on the spot or anything, but his most recently created article might actually benefit from new page patroller loving (for example, it needed a category). That being said, I don't object to him receiving autoreviewer, but as with the first instance, I don't really see the need. –xeno^talk 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Serious issues rendering pages which begin with some templates

Resolved

 – Let's try to keep this all in one place. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else noticing that many articles are suddenly "invisible," but if you go view the script, they're there? Does this have something to do with the software update? Are these invisible for other people (found via "random"):

Grzeszów

John Warner (half missing)

Storm Shadow

About 1 in 20 random articles are displaying this. Happening to other people?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I just checked IE; it's only occurring in my Firefox. IE is fine. Maybe just my browser is hemorrhaging. Anyone else having problems?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Devs are looking into this, see WP:VPT#Vanishing articles? –xeno^talk 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No! Hold on! When I sign in on IE they disappear! When I was signed out, they were fine. My Vector skin in Appearance options must be causing it somehow?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? My edit windows freeze my computer. I crashed 3 times already. This is really irritating. --70.121.36.115 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The developers are workign on it. –xeno^talk 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle/Friendly seem to also be broken by the update (at least for me in Firefox). Manual page tagging and warning is much harder than I remember.  7  00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No idea where to post software failures in the middle of an update, but i am finding internet explorer 8 (my normal browser) goes away and eventually produces out of memory errors if I try to edit a page. Firefox works. (as witnes my being able to post this). Sandpiper (talk) 07:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Autoblocks are acting screwy

Resolved

Autoblocks are seeming to hit unrelated users for no reason, so for the time being, consider disabling autoblock until the devs get us sorted. Extra eyes on Category:Requests for unblock-auto would also be appreciated. –xeno^talk 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to NW, they need these in place to diagnose the issue. I guess just issue apologies to those affected! –xeno^talk 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the block text to warn that the autoblocker is malfunctioning--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Werdna should have fixed it. Please report it to him immediately if this comes up again. NW (Talk) 01:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Reiteration of Unblock Request

• Agnapostate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have an interest in ensuring that inappropriate unilateral actions that would not be supported by administrator consensus are not committed and would request a more general review of the reiterated unblock request, the initial block justification, and the appropriateness of the original block if possible. 71.103.96.80 (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Evading a block by editing other pages while blocked usually does more harm than good.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this hardly constitutes "evasion"; it's an open and unconcealed request on the AN, the last of places that I'd commission an illegal sock puppet. 198.188.96.4 (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT, on the condition of making more varied edits.

Arabmaniac at Gaza War

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lades

Hi there. I created a new article, named Lades. Please tell me if this article is valid for Wikipedia. Thanks. BigKing197cm (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as it was, and I have deleted it under WP:CSD#G7. Please read the help pages relating to creating articles. If someone else hasn't, I will add a welcome template to your page which will help you create good articles and guide as regards the practices, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case regarding the Eastern European mailing list

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.

The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; the Committee have provided explicit instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously.

Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 01:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we find out what IP a user is using

Resolved

 – Page protected by NuclearWarfare. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been a user that has done the same vandalism as an IP user did yesterday and the vandalism seems to have came out of nowhere. If we can find out and it's the same person can we also block them. The page which this is happening is here Template:Toronto Maple Leafs roster navbox. --Fire 55 (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is protected now. For future reference, if you think one person is using multiple accounts in a discussion, you can open a sockpuppet investigation; for editwarring, it is usually better to go to the dedicated noticeboard or just request page protection until discussion can get started again. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue (remove this message once resolved)

In less than one hour Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the Next update if there are between 6-10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #5 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo}} to the top of the page and save the page
4. When the next queue is good to go remove this entire message from the board

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKadminBot (talk) DYKadminBot is operated by Ameliorate! ^(talk)

I am currently trying to fill queue 5 but there is not much to go with at the moment. T:TDYK really needs some people reviewing suggestions... Regards SoWhy 13:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just did a couple & will try to get in a couple more later, but yes it seems more help is definitely needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Block of 128.174.251.48

I have temporarily blocked the IP above, as it seems to belong to one of the ClueBots (III?), and it is editing while logged out. If this was a mistake, feel free to point it out to me (and unblock if necessary). Regards, decltype (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've inquired with the bot's operator about softblocking the IP for a longer duration, as well (seems reasonable to me, but figured I might as well run it past them, first). – Luna Santin (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki? Well, if only the bot is using the IP it couldn't hurt, I suppose. While the occasional anonymous editing may not cause much harm, it is clearly not in accordance with the bot policy. decltype (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Issues surrounding {{Lifetime}}

I'm bringing this here because I'm really not sure where to bring this up and an option for an RfC seems to have been bypassed.

The nutshell is that for the past month or so, likely longer, various 'bots and Rich Farmbrough (using AWB) have been replacing {{Lifetime}} with {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the two birth/death related categories the template normally supplies. Rich has also been bold and created a substitution only version of the template - {{ltm}} - and a "Please don't use" boilerplate - {{Nolifetime}} - on Septtember 3, 2009. There is little discussion of the creation of a replacement of Lifetime that reached an actual consensus on the template's talk page.

Concerns that this is an end run at the TfD related to Lifetime - Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 22#Lifetime - have been raised, especially since Magioladitis mentioned that a change to a substitution only version since 2008. The concern has never really been addressed.

In the discussions that happened while the 'bots have continued to run a few other things have cropped up:

• At least one editor, JimCubb, commenting/complaining that the discussion of the topic had finally moved off of user talk pages to the template page. [39]
• A second substitute only version has been pointed to - {{L}}} created August 5, 2009.
• Issues with the 'bots acting blindly. That is acting in only one way over a related set of articles where more than one answer is needed.
• An editor posting a question about the consensus on the change was answered by Magioladitis on the editors talk page with "I replied to your talk page." only being stated on the template's page. And the answer the editor got ended with "You can still use Lifetime to new articles, although I would recommend you to use the new susbt-only {{ltm}} to save bots' effort in the future."

- J Greb (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the TfD, I do see a considerable amount of concern that the template obscures certain information when editing -- specifically including information that may be very important to bots and scripts -- as well as a considerable amount of interest in using the template as a shortcut so that such information needn't be typed in by hand; it seems to me that keeping the template for human use, but automagically replacing it with the full text, is an elegant attempt at trying to meet the needs of both camps. That said, it seems there's a bit of a hiccup procedurally, looking at Template talk:Lifetime and duplicates like {{L}} and {{Ltm}}. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not adverse to the idea of 'bots converting Lifetime. IIUC we've had one or more 'bots running for a while that take the "list-as" parameter from the Bioproject talk page header and create a DS for the article if a DS doesn't exist.

But I'm not keen on:

• Being presented with fait accompli removals.
• Questions about a template, asked on the template's talk page being answered off page.
• Such questions being answered with what amounts to "Yes, the template you used is still here, but you really should be using something else."
• Creation of a boilerplate, talk page targeted template that sums up as "Please don't use the template." without a consensus or discussion of the need for such a template.
• 'Bots running to "tweak" stand alone DSes. Some of the flack has been from 'bots changing an existing DS to conflict with a standing occurrence of Lifetime. If an editor has placed as DS, in all likelihood they picked the sort key for a reason. A change to that should go through a live editor, not a 'bot.

- J Greb (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with proposed speedy deletion

Resolved

I'm sure I am in the wrong place but I have looked at the deletion pages and can't work out how or where to stick my discussion. A stub on an academic journal which I have just created, Brunei Museum Journal has unbelievabley been put up for speedy deletion. I can only assume the nominator doesn't appreciate what an academic journal is, and thinks it is equivalent to a high school yearbook. Can someone please remove the speedy deletion tag? It's an absolute nonsense. Thanks Jasper33 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks to User:Davewild. Jasper33 (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yarrrr

Fer the next 24 hours, spammer, vandals and other misreants shall be hung from the yardarm so they shall. Guy (Help!) 11:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Swab them decks, me hearties! - 2/0 (cont.) 16:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed to assess "Future" template discussion (moved from ANI)

Resolved

 – After about 2 hours of reading/thinking & 30-45 minutes of actually writing out my close, the discussion is now closed. Hopefully that solves the issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates has died down and requires an assessment by a neutral admin.

A short rundown of the situation seems to be in order:

• User:Conti began a centralized discussion in which he proposed the deprecation of all Future templates ({{Future}} and similar templates).
• Discussion was closed by User:Tone as Deprecate.
• Transcluded notices were added to all Future templates, warning of the deprecation and imminent removal.
• User:Drilnoth got approval, and began running, a bot that started systematically removing Future templates from articles.
• Some templates were successfully orphaned and tagged with {{deprecated}}, and some were also deleted afterward.
• Users not privy to the discussion noticed the bot removal and noted their disapproval at cent, requesting that the bot be halted. These users expressed not only a protest to the decision, but also a general displeasure with the manner in which the proposal was handled.
• Bot was halted voluntarily by Drilnoth pending further discussion. Drilnoth collapsed previous discussions and began a new RFC (on the same page). Further discussion ensued.

That's about where we are now, though the discussion has since died down. A common dilemma throughout this process has been the question of whether or not the centralized "deprecation" discussion served as an actual "deletion discussion", or if TFD(s) should be required in addition, following the decision to deprecate. The admin who answers this call will need to provide such an assessment, in addition to providing a general decision as to the outcome of the discussion (ie. whether or not consensus exists to deprecate the templates).

Thanks to whoever is willing to take this on. Equazcion (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• The only value of the {{future}} templates is as a marker for the rampant WP:OR, speculation and uncritical repetition of marketing hype that characterises those articles. So I'll not be getting involved :-) Guy (Help!) 12:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone here? I'd like to have this discussion either continue or end sooner rather than later; the templates all still have their deprecation notices. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • ^Ditto :) Equazcion (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll bite. Please give me some time to read through the voluminous discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical issue

Resolved

 – New fangled technology... Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I figure I'll just stick it here because I don't have time to search more carefully.

There's a strange problem with the article United States presidential election, 1808. If you view it in FF, IE, or Chrome (at least for the versions I have), the article appears as blank. Yet, the text is all there. If you look at the oldid it is still visible, and if you edit the page and hit show preview the article still shows up. I have no idea what's wrong with it. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's visible for me using Firefox 3.5.3; plus I've purged it so there shouldn't be a caching issue on the server end. Can you reload the page and see whether it still shows up as blank? — Gavia immer (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I swear it wasn't appearing 10 minutes ago, even though I had repeatedly refreshed and cleared my cache. Anyway, it's working now. Strange.... Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion at the technical village pump; the issue was caused by recent software updates. Graham87 08:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Userpage spam

I have noticed a pattern of abuse that has been going on for a long time. Basically, a user creates a spammy entry in their userspace, and links to it from their userpage. See Seofon (talk · contribs) for an example. Other users just use a spam username and then add the spam to their userpage. I get this feeling that they are all related somehow. For example, after I filed an SPI case, the MO switched from adding a simple internal link to the subpage to saying "This is a sandbox to be saved for future use" next to the link. Does anyone know more on this? And does anyone have any idea how to stop this abuse while distinguishing from the innocent users? Triplestop x3 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the stub from the article in Seofon's sandbox, since that's inappropriate for User space. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved admin to close merge proposal

Please close the merge proposal at 350 (organisation). The situation is that some editors —with a long history of editing articles in order to minimise or deny global warming— are trying to downgrade-merge this article into Bill McKibben, arguing on "notability" and "inadequate sources" grounds, when they clearly have no leg to stand on. Please bring some sanity to the page. Admins with an interest in SCIENCE welcome. ► RATEL ◄ 12:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Jafeluv (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism

Resolved

 – MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) did it. @harej 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I am the pre-eminent MFD closer, I am afraid I cannot close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism due to the fact that I participated in it. In the interest of keeping the backlog down, since it is overdue, can a neutral party please close it for me? @harej 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV/RFPP Backlogs

Resolved

 – Both clear now. FWIW this seems more like an AN/I request :) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV and RFPP need help. I'm a bit busy multitasking to take the time needed to review. Keegan (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Page corruption

Resolved

Some type of corruption was introduced on this page from my edit at 06:03 UTC today. I don't know what could have done it but I'm working to get it fixed. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem was that Hu12 JzG|Guy posted a link to an old version of this page on Filmtvfan's talk page. I followed it here but didn't see that it was an old page because the link jumped to the bottom of the page causing the old page warning to not be visible. My apologies. I think it's all fixed now and I'll go cleanup the resulting archive mess next. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have repaired the archive as well by removing the 20 threads archived immediately after my accidental page reversion. All 20 threads were already in the same file having been archived before my edit.

Obviously we need {{D'oh!}} as a boilerplate for "I made a boo-boo" posts... :-) Guy (Help!) 15:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Texas State University and Texas State University–San Marcos

Resolved

 – AdjustShift (talk · contribs) reverted. Gabbe (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A follow anon has copied and pasted the content of Texas State University–San Marcos into Texas State University. I have no opinion as to which is correct, however, by copying the information, the edit history from the original article has been lost. Could an admin undo the copy and paste and do a move over the old material at Texas State University? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rename image request

Resolved

I understand that there is no easy way to rename images, but it is to my understanding that administrators could do so. I've received a request from a user to help them in renaming an image, so I've come here. =D Could someone rename [[File:Startegic_Barnstar.JPG]] to Strategic Barnstar.JPG? Thanks for your help! Netalarmtalk 21:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: The problem is a spelling error when the file was first uploaded. Netalarmtalk 21:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. It's now at File:Strategic Barnstar.JPG. --Masamage ♫ 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files backlog

WP:PUF has a bit of a backlog... most recent discussions have been closed, but a number remain that are too complicated for me to feel comfortable closing seeing as how this is more legal-related stuff. If someone could take a look and try to clear out the remaining backlog, that would be great! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Asterix_-_Cast.png

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh  07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh  07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

General question about what to do with redirects after renaming files.

Now that renaming (moving) files is possible again I decided to dive in and chip away at the file rename request backlog. However I'm not quite sure if I should leave the redirect behind or not after a move. Is there any consensus on this? So far I've been leaving them behind mainly because all the upload log entries still point to the old name, but assuming all other incoming links have been fixed to use the new name is there any point in leaving redirects like File:001237723.jpg and whatever behind? --Sherool (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is no need to fix the incoming links, anymore than you need to fix single redirects after page moves, so there isn't a need to really do anything. MBisanz ^talk 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the image looks unused (no "file links") if you just leave the image links pointing at the redirect, so I do tend to fix them when I rename a file. --Sherool (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, that sounds more like a bug than a feature. MBisanz ^talk 05:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, uses do show up indented under the redirect page on the "What links here" page as one would expect though, just not under "file links" on the description page. Not sure how "smart" bots that look for orphaned files are, so I've taken to just fix image links for now just in case. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the redirects is probably a good idea as anyone viewing or restoring old versions will be getting the old name and the redirects would help here. In the case of really inappropriate names, this issue can probably be ignored (vulgar names, embedded personal names). This is a good new feature to have; many files have bad names. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, very good point. --Sherool (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Please redirect my page

I was trying to create "Zawngtah" page. I want to redirect this page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkia_speciosa since Parkia speciosa is known locally by us as "Zawngtah."

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaphualization (talk • contribs)

Type "#REDIRECT [[Parkia speciosa]]" on Zawngtah. You've had an account here for long enough that you can make new pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I've created the redirect anyway. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Resolved

I don't know who to ask so I am posting here. This makes some sense because an administrator must do the work to fix this.

Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary

The problem article is Geminoropa scindocataracta. This has been a dictionary definition for over two years. Minor edits include just adding categories.

The text of the article is as follows:

Geminoropa scindocataracta is a species of gastropod in the Charopidae family. It is endemic to Australia.

That is a dictionary entry, not an article.

Should we delete this until someone comes up with an article? Or delete the policy? Or create a new policy stating that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but some dictionary articles are permitted if the author states that the article is an exception". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but it's also a constant work in progress. I would say the only instance where an article should be deleted for being a dictionary entry is where the possibility doesn't exist that it could be expanded into an encyclopedia article. If you really think the article should be deleted though, you can nominate it for deletion by following the instructions at WP:AFD. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's actually a valid stub article, the hope being that someone will come along and expand it. We have thousands of these, and as long as there is some sourced information, it's OK and doesn't offend against the WP:NOTDICT guideline. Rodhullandemu 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:STUB puts it well: "A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase." This article passes that test: it's about a snail. JohnCD (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am a nice person. I do not go around trying to delete people's hard work. This makes more sense now. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

innapropriate behavior and page speedy deletion

Resolved

 – WWGB didn't carry out any deletion; (s)he only restored an XFD tag.

I would like to bring into attention of the board that the user WWGB is carrying out a speedy deletion of the article 2009 Sydney dust storm without meeting the criteria for him/her to do so. He/she is also threatening blocking another Wikipedia user, behaving as an admin without having admin privileges to do so (see my page). Please, can someone assist? Thanks. --Mhsb (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you are incorrect. The note is about a deletion discussion not a speedy deletion and thus the notice remian until the AFD is closed. Any user can warn another if they make inappropriate edits. Pedro :  Chat  10:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice, please

Hi!

Someone has left an accusation on their old user page about my behaviour, and I have asked them to retract their accusation (This user is changing usernames, and left a note on their old user page what their new user name will be, and the reason behind it). I have also asked them to explain why they think I behaved improperly, so I can clear things up.

Anyway, the reason for me posting this isn't for me to get the full weight of the admins on the case - to be honest, I don't think that will help matters; I would like to resolve this myself first. What this is about is that the user has not been online (well, has not made any edits with either the old or the new user id), and so the accusation is still there on his page.

What is the general ettiquete for removing accusations from someone elses user page if they aren't active? It would be just my luck for the user in question to be on holiday for a couple of weeks, and have that accusation on there all that time; this is my reputation (such that it is), and I would like to keep it intact. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Check WP:NPA for guidance. But if it were me, I would turn them in to WP:WQA and let an admin take care of it. Although I doubt anyone woulf fault you for zapping it from that page. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll remove the personal attack and leave a note on the user's (new) talk page. I won't report them to WQA just yet; I'll see how things pan out first.

What would be useful for me would be if someone with a spare minute (or 30!) could check my interaction between myself and User:RuleOfThe9th, and let me know if I did do anything amiss, or could have handled things differently to have stopped things reaching this stage? Cheers! Stephen! ^Coming... 11:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal hostname?

It's been brought to my attention that the hostname for User:66.76.66.195 is hostname:vandal.van.sprnet.org. I have to admit to knowing very little about tracing IPs and hostnames etc, so would someone with more experience consider whether this is worth investigating? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's used by Van Independent School District, who seem to frequently refer to themselves as vandals[40]. It is not in itself a problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Problem is, this particular IP user has been very naughty as of lately and had been blocked temporary for 24hours today, and the title befits their action here on Wikipedia. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, good block, and good comedy value. I'd like to see the unblock request :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

New wikitext syntax and 'bots

This was announced on the wikien-l mailing list earlier this month, but the announcement on-wiki was … ahem! … somewhat understated. (Moral: Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the mailing list is no longer relevant.) The new <references>…</references> syntax, that was discussed back in July of this year, is now live on this wiki. More details, including an example article with this new syntax in use in its wikitext, and a notice about an unfortunate AWB problem that is now being fixed so that my stalker — SmackBot — is well again soon, are on the Technical Village Pump. Uncle G (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

See also this week's Signpost, which has another couple of example articles. Chick Bowen 00:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock Check

Have IP spammer problem who persistantly reappears adding url's to circumvent a current blacklisting. see(Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Liver_Health_Spam )Primarily reappears under the 117.... and 113...IP. I've rangeblocked;

117.22.0.0/16 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
113.132.112.0/20 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

for 48 hrs. This won't lock too many out?--Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Both blocks look good to me. It looks like there are some occasional good anons on those networks, but it seems to be all spam for the last ten days. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't want block out the entire Municipality of Beijing..LOL--Hu12 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How to respond to this messaage left on my Talk page?

After a routine CSD deletion I received this request User_talk:Alexf#Please_restore_Linguatula_and_advise_how_to_prevent_further_speedy_deletions_when_class_submits_more_Wikipedia_entries.. I can deal with request for article restoration or to userfy as it is fairly common but this question about advice on class (school) submissions is out of my expertise. I'd like to redirect the gentleman to a more proper venue to post the question. Thought of ANI but feel it is not the right place. Any suggestions before I respond, appreciated. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:School and University projects exists specifically to help guide this sort of enterprise. That's where I would go. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was looking for. Thanks! -- Alexf^(talk) 00:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Eyes probably needed

I would expect that extra eyes will be needed for Susan Atkins with her death recently announced [41]. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I am keeping an eye on the article. - Drew Smith What I've done 09:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Image on mainpage with incorrect licensing

The image on the main page in the "in the news" section has an incorrect license. The article is Staffordshire hoard and the images have been imported as "cc-by" whereas they were actually uploaded to Flickr as cc-by-NONCOMMERCIAL. So, this is a regular copy-vio but the urgency comes from the fact that this image is on the main-page incorrectly. Now, the images might possibly be able to claim fair-use, but we still don't allow fair-use on the mainpage anyway. Can someone please take the image off the mainpage and review it for fair-use status. Witty Lama 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The whole lot was commercial, the license was changed sometime between it being uploaded and now. MickMacNee (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be good now; the Google Cache establishes it as such. I deleted the local image, protected it at commons, and added a note to say that the license has been changed since the original upload. NW (Talk) 13:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

this one looks to be correct too. MickMacNee (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages

Hey all. Is there any issue lifting some ancient indefinite protections placed on talk pages? The list of pages is available here: Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages. A lot of them seem to be user talk pages where the user acted inappropriately (and thus got his or her talk page privileges taken away). These protections are no longer necessary. Most of these users have long since left the project, however these entries do add a lot of needless noise when looking at indefinite protections. If these users wish to return, they can't appeal their blocks on their talk page. In the unlikely event that one of these users returns and causes problems, they can be re-blocked with talk page access removed. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cross post on RfPP, and I generally agree.--Tznkai (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd be happy to help out if there is consensus to unprotect them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a list of user talkpages, all of indefblocked or long-departed editors. I don't really see this as warranting priority attention, especially given that there's no reason anyone would want to edit these pages now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like something which probably should be done; however, it's low priority (so it should be done during times when Wikipedia activity is low); and if we include creation-protected pages in the list, we must immediately modify the blocks (since a lot of these come from someone who abused the edit privledge to create a huge page hich would frequently crash the web browsers). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I often wikignome around old protected user talk pages, and I agree these pages can be a minor annoyance when you're finding stuff to unprotect. I've often wondered what to do with them, and I've always just left them alone. We've unprotected most of the IP address talk pages (schools etc) where the users might change, but even so there are some IPs where every admin who has reviewed the protection has left them protected. And these are admins who like unprotecting stuff. Some of these pages, perhaps the majority of IPs by now, may be protected with good reason. I would not recommend using a bot, in fact I would recommend not unprotecting unless you're very clear on what you're unprotecting, and it won't always be apparent. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just don't unprotect them blindly, there needs to be someone to recognize when an ancient protections are there for a very good reason. Perhaps the unblock e-mail address could be put on the ones that should not be unprotected. Chillum 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Low priority perhaps, but I enjoy the idea of a clutter free wiki.--Tznkai (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad too. How is an old protected talk page of an indef blocked user clutter? It has none of the properties of clutter, it is certainly not in the way. It is a no-priority for me. Chillum 15:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with NYB. If they are eventually unprotected, we need to be sure to go back and modify the blocks to disallow talk page editing (the majority of these protections were before that option was available within the blocking options) because the majority from my glance at the list is of editors who had their talk page privileges revoked for legitimate reasons and I don't see the need to give that privilege back to them now. If necessary we can provide the email to ArbCom so they can appeal if they so desire. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think this should be addressed but the fact is it's a lot of busywork for no net benefit other than making the DBR actually useful to look at. –xeno^talk 15:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any actual problem that this unprotection would solve. If it leads to any controversies being restarted, it could use up admin time for no good reason. If the issue is that Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely fully-protected talk pages is too large, why not split off a separate group for just the protected user talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't anyone's intention, but I really don't appreciate others trying to tell me where my volunteer time should be spent or how I should set my priorities. Further, I made no comment anywhere above that these pages were a high priority, so I also don't appreciate the suggestion that I did. The database report is months old; some of these protections are years old (that's decades in wikitime). I have no idea where this idea that I considered these high priority came from, but it's simply rude to try to put words into my mouth. I started a discussion about these pages on a discussion board because I wanted to see if there were legitimate issues to be concerned about with regard to these pages. If there are legitimate concerns, feel free to share them. Otherwise, please keep comments about anyone's priorities or use of their volunteer time to yourself. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely-blocked users might resume posting inappropriate comments on their newly-liberated talk pages. These issues might start to use up the time of admins generally, not just you. As a trivial example of some issues that would be created, some admins locked their own talk page on their departure. Will you disallow this? I have no argument with revisiting policy on protection of user talk pages in the future. Going into the past seems like looking for trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The initial proposal seems to suggest that talk pages protected to prevent abuse would be unprotected. I don't really see a valid reason for not doing this, actually. It's not a huge issue, but it's a nuisance when you're reviewing certain reports and lists. If people want to deal with it, let them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the problematic users who are still active and ready to fire up their socks for talk page disruption at any time. A quick glance shows several that I'm aware of, like User talk:Norman Rogers 2013 is listed there. That can be a bigger waste of admin time than filtering the lists and reports for useful things. What really is to be gained from filtering these pages from the list and reports which include them? Very little. The cost of disruption outweigh the benefits in cases which aren't considered carefully. Also, some of the pages should be simply deleted as CAT:TEMP, and some of them probably salted. Others will want their block changed to prevent talk page editing before they are unprotected. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. They need review on a case-by-case basis. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this whole idea. I'm protection averse and don't see the need in most cases. Where the protection was for talk page abuse adjusting the block should be sufficient in 99.9% of cases.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I also don't really buy the fear that if we unprotect these en masse suddenly everyone is going to pick up their old socks and start abusing the talk page again and create a lot of work for administrators. Reviewing them all on a case-by-case and reblocking with talk page blocked is going to be exponentially more work that doing a batch and dealing with whatever disruption it enables (I would be willing to be it will be close to none, especially for the ones 2-3 years old). Perhaps try to filter for the most egregious blocks that were put in place for outing,blp,etc. –xeno^talk 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They also need a human review to avoid pages like User talk:Arbitration Committee, which is also listed. There is simply no SQL query to match the pages which should not be unprotected. Anyway MZMcBride, as far as I'm concerned by all means get unprotecting and reblocking. Just be careful eh, some of them are really rather unpleasant. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I was more talking about filtering them thru using the protection reason to look for the ones that may indicate that greater care is necessary. –xeno^talk 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at a couple and found the 6th one down when sorted by the oldest first was blocked in Jan 06 for 48 hours and his talk page was protected indef, wtf? I'm sure he won't be back but I unprotected that one since I was there. Any chance for someone to go through some of these would be worthwhile.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Move them to a different category: Presumably abandoned indefinately protected talk pages. That would move them somewhere "out of the way" where they don't clutter up other categories. Append a note to the bottom saying the page is protected but it can be un-protected for 7 days by an email request to any administrator, with a note that it's expected the next edit will be a block-appeal. Since this task can be completely automated, once a bot is written there won't be much work to do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Community input requested: Proposed policy on the administrative use of RevisionDelete

Message cross-posted to several relevant venues. Please only reply on the revision deletion talk page.

Several months ago, I drafted a policy for the use of the revision deletion function for administrators on the English Wikipedia. After consultation with a small group of users, I made modifications and changes (with the help of FT2) to better address the suggestions of these people. I have waited a while for the policy to become more stable before consulting the wider community, because it is in my belief that there is nothing worse than discussing a policy draft that still does not have the consensus of its drafters. The policy in its current state is quite similar to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion policy, in that it defines very specific circumstances in which the revision deletion functionality can be used. The policy is defined so strictly to help allay some of the fears of potential misuse of the functionality, with deviation from the set criteria resulting in whatever sanctions are decided upon by the community. I would invite all users to read the statement and FAQs that I have written at Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#Community consultation regarding the functionality and then discuss on the talk page the merits of ratifying this policy, and subsequently enabling the feature for administrators on this project. Thanks for listening and happy editing! ~fl 05:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Announcement

Resolved

 – Message received loud and clear, an appropriate barnstar is reserved in the case of unblock.  Skomorokh  07:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Collapsing per wp:rbi.

I didn’t know were to post this. I'm going to post this here if its ok. I am a new user on here. I made my user name on September 8, 2009 and this will be my first edit in the main space. Before I start to edit on here. I read all of Wikipedia, Policies and guidelines. I found the links to the Policies and guidelines on Template:Admin_dashboard on User:Black Kite/Toolbox. I put this Template on my user page. On the bottom of this Template it has lots of Administrator links and even links to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines and New admin school and so on. Yes, I read everything and looked at all of the links. It took me around 2 weeks to finish. I just wanted to let you all know. So you understand why I know so much for a new user. ok. --Michael (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) No new user ever has to defend their arrival or explain their level of knowledge. Now based on the above some will suspect you are, in fact, a previous user come back under a new identity. Whether this is true or not, there are 10 million users and 1680 admins. Hence we don't go examining new users until we have a reason to. Good editors who play by the rules are never a problem, don't get investigated and are ALWAYS welcome. So I shall assume good faith and welcome you on board. Regards, Manning (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Btw, this user has apparently just been indeffed by Prodego. Until It Sleeps T • C 01:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Wow, two weeks of waiting, and "Plaxico'd" after his very first edit. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Brandon also deleted his user page. However both Brandon and Prodego generally knows what they are doing so I'm not challenging. I left a polite question about it on Brandon's talk page. Manning (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Checkuser confirmed sock, still being investigated. Prodego talk 02:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Who really thinks that WP:DUCK DIDN'T apply? A checkuser might confirm who the account is a sock of, but the nature of the account is as obvious as anything ever is around here. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC) This is more of a "negative duck", though - it's not clear what that account was up to, but it's clear that they fail any reasonable comparison with a legitimate new account. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (Forgive me for the post resolved comment, but...) The duck wasn't merely walking, talking, and quacking, he was doing insurance commercials... (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) user:J aka justen (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC) It's Michael93555 (talk · contribs) and this sock was created September 8, the same day that Michael's other sock D climacus (talk · contribs) was blocked. He just plays games with us for entertainment value and is best dealt with by RBI. Sarah 05:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I'm curious if there's more than these two. Just glancing at his contributions I don't see any real disruption. D climacus was started two months after Michael93555, there's no overlap, he just restarted under a new name. And has done so again. I've seen admins abuse the sockpuppet policy more than this. Would it be reasonable for an admin to unblock on a condition that Michael volunteers to restrict himself to this current account and not create any more? --InkSplotch (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Digging deeper I've now seen the sockpuppet investigation on the original account, and understand the reason things have been closed out this way. I think if the user really wants back at this point, they might take their case to ArbCom as a community ban appeal. Maybe not really the exact way to go here, but it was quite a sockpuppet investigation. --InkSplotch (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC) My very first account was User:Michael27ca witch was blocked on February 20, 2009 then I made a new account on February 21, 2009 as User:Michael35ca and it was blocked on February 23, 2009 then I made a new account on February 23, 2009 as User:Bingo-101a and it was blocked on March 7, 2009 and then I made a new account on March 13, 2009 as User:Michael93555 and it was blocked on July 4, 2009. That account has over 3,000 edits. After Michael93555 account, I been blocked and not given a chance to edit on here. --Michael (talk) as --209.44.123.1 (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break from my tools

Hello my colleagues. I have decided to take a break from using my admin tools for a while in the hopes of getting back the wiki-time I spend on these duties. It is my hopes that it will free my time up to participate in discussion and editing without the distraction.

Please know that I have every intention of eventually resuming my janitorial duties here and that I apologize for shifting the work I normally do onto your backs. I have every confidence that things will be handled well in my absence.

As part of this new direction I am exploring I have removed almost all users from my watchlist so that I can make a clean break from existing admin with various users. As such you may see a few users who are suddenly left without the admin guidance they previously had, once again I have every confidence that this will be handled well by others. If you wish to be on my watchlist mention it here or on my talk page.

I did this for a few weeks are year or so ago and it seemed to be helpful to me as an editor, so here I go again. Chillum 01:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Admin guidance" is one way of putting it, but it wouldn't have been my first choice of phrasing. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I for one would welcome Chillum's "admin guidance". RMHED. 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum, I am glad you came here to make sure that you will not be without guidance. I am sorry that I am not available for you as I have been in the past. Chillum 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just have to bumble along all by myself, without your "help". Good times. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like I always say, nobody deserves a good swift kick like the guy who's already conceded. Equazcion (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG NO what will we do? Skinwalker (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a rather strange thing to archive after less than an hour... Not sure why that happened. I think people should still feel free to comment here though. Chillum 15:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably pointless, but so was archiving. I've removed the archive box.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Review and proposed ban of spam-only account, Filmtvfan

User Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) is user NZ On Screen (talk · contribs). This user's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been linking to NZ On Screen. Additionaly nzonscreen.com fails the specific requirements of our External Links guidelines.

• nzonscreen.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.nzonscreen.com

See also - User_talk:NZ_On_Screen

See also - NZ On Screen

See also - Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan

See also - Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#NZ_On_Screen

Other Accounts

• NZ On Screen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Filmtvfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• Capricorn58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

• 121.45.42.11 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Violations of, but not limited to:

• SPAM
  • External link spamming
  • Source soliciting
• External links policy
  • Links normally to be avoided
• Conflict of interest
  • Accounts used for promotion
• What Wikipedia is not
  • Wikipedia is not a directory
  • Wikipedia is not a repository for links
• SOCK
  • Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
  • 'Role' accounts

This user is now subject to;

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Blocks
• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption_prevention

1. (Persistent spamming)

• Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only

1. (Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.).

After being blocked previously and declined 4 times^[42], this situation was sufficiently explained to NZ On Screen Project Director Brenda Leeuwenberg^[43] on her previous account User_talk:NZ_On_Screen over a year ago. This user has continued this past year spamming and promoting NZ On Screen, and pacing hundreds of links to her site. While there is limited discussion on the Newly created WP:EL/N, a wider administrative and community review is needed of this users behavior.--Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree and have blocked the account for block evasion and spamming. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good job with the block. I have take out NZOS links from some NZ media pages on my watchlist. Mostlyharmless' revert was based in an archived EL discussion that has now been overtaken by events.--Eaglestorm (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• You didn't write that in pirate. So much for promises. Keegan (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Arrrr, ye be right and I be properly chastened. I've run out the plank and sent the scurvy knave to Davy Jones' Locker. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a shame. Filmtvfan is undoubtedly a SPA with a COI, but her edits benefited Wikipedia by providing reliable sources and useful links per WP:ELYES. She also asked permission for her edits, and got it, firstly at the New Zealand Wikipedians' noticeboard, and then at Wikipedia talk:External links.

Hu12 has followed policy in pressing for a block on Filmtvfan and in reverting her edits, but they has made the encyclopedia of lower quality by doing so.-gadfium 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently reinstated some of these links, unaware this ANI was in process. However, the links seem sound to me, and should be reinstated. As Gadfium pointed out above, the legitimacy of the links had already been established at the New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board and elsewhere. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe this block is unwarranted. JzG|Guy accused the user of block evasion on their talk page. However, clear permission had been given to resume posting in early 2009. The other block justification was spamming, however many users have recently stated that at least some of these links are proper, in addition to the previous agreement reached on link usefulness. As for the violations cited by Hu12, most of them are guidelines, not policies, and all have clear exceptions that cover many of the NZ On Screen links. And that's before we even get to WP:IAR. I disagree with Hu12's statement that "'relevant' does not make exception to the multiple WP:ELNO restictions, and vio's of WP:NOT and WP:COI." This statement is a clear violation of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, especially given that many of the links don't actually violate the guidelines he has claimed. Furthermore, Hu12 posted a final warning to the user and then JzG|Guy came along and blocked the account even though no more edits had taken place and she had not been permitted to respond to the questions on WP:ELN#NZ On Screen. This user isn't trying to blatant violate policy as can be seen in her statement from WP:ELN: "If this community would prefer that I propose a link each time in the Talk section of an article and wait for acceptance, then I am happy to do that - I think that the proposal of waiting a week for an objection or discussion is a good one. I certainly do not wish to contravene any rules."

The confusion we have here is that there are two types of ELs involved, both of which I think we were making progress on at WP:ELN. The first are links to video footage directly related to the article for which NZ On Screen has copyright permission to host but would be a violation to host on Wikipedia. In one case, Filmtvfan replaced a link to an unauthorized YouTube video with a link to a legal copy at NZ On Screen. Even this link was accused of being spam and reverted to the illegal link! The second type of link is to detailed biographical data on NZ On Screen that goes beyond what is in the Wikipedia article. A number of editors, including myself, feel that these links are not appropriate and that the material should be directly incorporated into the articles. The material is CC licensed. However, the sources aren't clear in many cases. Filmtvfan could be a valuable resource in enhancing the article with appropriate sources given her expertise.

Should Filmtvfan fail to abide by the boundaries we have setup in WP:ELN and continue directly adding biographical links, I'll be the first to ask for a block. I don't think we are at that point. I deal with spammers all the time and most of them have nothing of value to contribute. Filmtvfan is not at all such a clear cut case. I have no connection whatsoever to Filmtvfan or NZ On Screen. I had never even visited any of the articles in question before this controversy came up. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I largely agree with this, but the distinction isn't entirely clear cut, as I understand it. To take one example, the link on cinematographer Alun Bollinger is to a biographical type article, which contains a list of the films he has shot, and most of these link directly to copies of the entire film. There are a number of rules that could be used to include or exclude this link. Needless to say, this is a grey area (or a potentially disputed one), and will probably have to be discussed elsewhere. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some bio links may be a special case and WP:ELN is the right place to address them. In general, I would like to see the meat of the biographies incorporated into the article so we have proper sourcing and so that others can edit and further develop the material. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Filmtvfan's only edits have been dealing with the website nzonscreen.com, as had the old account NZ On Screen. I don't see a reason to unblock unless the user plans on contributing to articles and not adding the links to other sites.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Such behavior isn't banned by WP:SPA, which is itself only an essay. The SPA distinction is useful to identify real violations, including COI. However, the COI issue is well known in this case and we've been trying to deal with it in accordance with WP:COI. Everyone starts out as a SPA. If we bite them all there won't be anyone left. UncleDouggie (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with users Gadfium and UncleDouggie. I have watchlisted a large number of the pages which links were added to. I saw nothing untoward about them, and thought that they were valuable additions. I agree that Filmtvfan has sought consensus for her edits, and then followed that consensus. Initially, as with all new users, there was less understanding of the rules, but once informed of them Filmtvfan has made an effort to follow them, and worked with other users. I think this editor would make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the points made above by Gadfium, UncleDouggie and Mostlyharmless. The edits that were made benefited Wikipedia, and the user sought permission. I would predict that this user may well have turned into a productive user if this whole process had been dealt with better. I worry that it is now too late, and much worse the person has probably told friends "don't bother with trying to add to Wikipedia, it's a closed community of pedants, who are not interested in helping you learn how to participate, nor really even interested in creating an encyclopedia as much as policing one" Lanma726 (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In general agreement with the block; if the editor wants to actually, y'know, add content to articles instead if plopping in hundreds of external links to a single site, then we could certainly reconsider. Honestly, looking at some of the discussion of these links previously, the "consensus" that is being claimed above is pretty thin - two or three people in each discussion. The site may be non-commercial, but it's a government project promoting regional projects, so there's still a promotional aspect to it. Use the information thereon for building up articles, cool; simply dumping in external links, not so much. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It is conceivable that some uses of the NZ film site might have value. But the title of this AN report is about a proposed ban on the Filmvfan *account*, not a blacklisting of the link. I am concerned by this recent edit, with the edit summary "(Undid revision 313081539 as per this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#User:Filmtvfan)". Notice:

1. She is restoring the link after it was removed by a regular editor
2. Filmtvfan thinks the EL/N discussion has given her carte blanche to continue adding the link
3. She is still adding no content to these articles, only the link

I'd support an unblock if this editor were *restricted* from adding that link to any articles. I don't object to her putting a request to add the link on article talk pages, for consideration by regular editors. I certainly don't trust that she will understand and follow our normal editorial standards for which links belong where. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I read through the discussion before blocking. It's my opinion that the user was well aware that adding the link was not acceptable and that requests on the talk page was the only permissible way forward; even after that, we have the diff you link. Therefore I diagnose someone to whom getting their links in place is more important than respecting the project and its contributors. It looks to me as if the user does not trust anybody to judge whether the links are OK unless they agree that they are. I note also that the user created an article on the website. The fact that the site has some external credibility is a complication, but as far as Wikipedia goes this is an absolutely standard case of linkspamming, of the type we usually handle with WP:RBI and quite often with blacklisting. They are lucky that some good faith editors have supported links to the site so that blacklisting will probably not happen (unless of course it's found that they have been doing the same on other projects, in which case it might well rise to the level of meta blacklisting). The law of unintended consequences applies, of course, to all linkspammers. Guy (Help!) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless other abuses are found, blacklisting isn't the issue here. So moving forward. None of the links to any of the discussions ammounted to any sort of "consensus" to spam Wikipedia en-mas. One or two editors mistakenly agreeing to allow an organization's marketing representative to mass spam wikipedia is misguided, and some activly encouriging this user to "keep at it" ^[44] is simply irresponsible. This situation was sufficiently explained to the NZ On Screen Project Director on her previous account User_talk:NZ_On_Screen over a year ago in at least 4 unblock requests.^[45]. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site... as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. Some here need to consider why we have guidelines on Wikipedia. They are a result of wikipedias founding principles,...neutrality! Adding the same domain over and over is contradictory to this. Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of Useful vs. non-useful, but about self-promotion in general. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites. Typically of all sites that are owned by a single company or non-profit, its about generating traffic and increasing exposure. The big picture here clearly shows someone who is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests, NZ On Screen. This is a good block and not very controversial.--Hu12 (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I second EdJohnston's idea, the links do have some merit here and there, though seen that Filmtvfan is evading a block, and seen that they continued blatantly with what they were blocked for in the first place, I would suggest to restrict Filmtvfan for now (until further review of their edits) from adding links to mainspace themselves, they can discuss on talkpages, suggest links (but no response for a week, or even a year is not an excuse to add then the link themselves), but better, I would certainly like to see that they start writing content using their site's information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The block evasion disturbs me, and the misrepresentation of the earlier WP:EL conversations is distressing. The prior conversations said only that links to these videos were not automatically barred by the guideline, but that they must always be labeled with file size/required software. Filmtvfan seemed to interpret "not automatically prohibited" as "always allowed, even over the objections of other editors" -- and also 'forgot' to label the links.

I'd be satisfied with a never-in-the-mainspace restriction, although the usual thing is to require block-evading socks to wait one year before requesting editing privileges. I suspect that we could find a couple of editors to keep an eye on the user's contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I support EdJohnston's proposal. The recent links I looked at did have the proper labeling, but I didn't check all of them. UncleDouggie (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

User Filmtvfan (talk · contribs) has responded on her talk page because she can't post here. There's also discussion of a related block taking place there. UncleDouggie (talk) 07:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to keep this thread alive since Hu12 has archived the one at ELN in favor of this discussion. What's our plan to move forward? I see some activity today from Guy, but he hasn't responded any further to this issue, including his block of Capricorn58, which I believe is incorrect. For Filmtvfan, we never said that in all cases "requests on the talk page was the only permissible way forward" as asserted by Guy above. This is however the proposal put forward by EdJohnston and I think it deserves a shot. There's no way that you can say this is an "absolutely standard case of linkspamming" when many neutral editors have said that at least some of the links are valid. For a regular spammer, all the links are junk and need to be deleted. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Here some comparisons;

• 2009-05-07 23:02:38 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Denny Hulme (→External links)
• 2009-05-07 22:59:56 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Denny Hulme (→External links)
• 2009-05-07 22:47:33 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Chris Amon (→External links)
• 2009-05-07 22:23:52 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Bruce McLaren (→External links)
• 2009-05-07 22:10:15 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Bruce McLaren (External Links added )
• 2009-05-07 02:53:36 by Filmtvfan (hist) (diff) Derek Fox (New Zealand) (Added bio notes and link to full bio on NZ On Screen)
• 2009-05-07 01:20:55 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) NZ On Screen (update)
• 2009-05-07 01:11:49 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) Television New Zealand (updating)
• 2009-05-07 00:56:59 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) m Censorship in New Zealand
• 2009-05-07 00:47:51 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) Radio New Zealand
• 2009-05-07 00:47:26 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) m Radio New Zealand
• 2009-05-07 00:45:32 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) m New Zealand On Air
• 2009-05-07 00:33:23 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) New Zealand On Air
• 2009-05-07 00:29:40 by Capricorn58 (hist) (diff) Neil Walter (adding information)

Seems Capricorn58 is an WP:SPA for New Zealand On Air, from his/her first edit and all edits thereafter seem to maintain these related articles. Filmtvfan probably has an idea who this is, if its not her. I would not be opposed to unblocking if the actual account holder request it, however this account seems to be a "throw-away" account.--Hu12 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree with most everything Hu12 has said in this discussion. I originally didn't respond here because it appeared to be a banning discussion, and I am too involved to put forth an impartial assessment of the situation. That being said, Filmtvfan's behaviour has generally been disruptive and it is clear that she is a single purpose account whos only reason to be here is for the purpose of promotion. Most of the external links she has added are improper external links and, if anything, should be used as references to back up content that is written into the articles. ThemFromSpace 04:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This AN has ridden roughshod over the expressed views of senior New Zealand editors who consider these links are appropriate for New Zealand articles. I have restored the links to a number of these articles, but have not yet completed the correction, because a couple of editors have requested this. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow...Special:Contributions/Geronimo20

• 13:44, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) m Janet Frame ‎ (Undid revision 316294801 by Xxanthippe (talk) Absolutely! My COI is wanting to seeeappropriate quality links added to articles like this one) (top)
• 13:05, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ (→Review and proposed ban of spam-only account, Filmtvfan: cmt)
• 12:43, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) User talk:Xxanthippe ‎ (NZonscreen) (top)
• 12:29, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Rewi Alley ‎ (Undid revision 313065944 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:28, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Taika Waititi ‎ (Undid revision 313065968 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:27, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Derek Fox (New Zealand) ‎ (Undid revision 313066058 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:27, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Chris Amon ‎ (Undid revision 313066236 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:26, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Denny Hulme ‎ (Undid revision 313066299 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:25, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Jason Gunn ‎ (Undid revision 313066331 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:10, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Fat Freddy's Drop ‎ (Undid revision 313066877 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:10, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Boh Runga ‎ (Undid revision 313066955 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:09, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Straitjacket Fits ‎ (Undid revision 313066987 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:08, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Minuit (band) ‎ (Undid revision 313067005 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:08, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Robbie Magasiva ‎ (Undid revision 313082642 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:07, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Peter Snell ‎ (Undid revision 313082629 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:06, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) John Britten ‎ (Undid revision 313082608 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:05, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Michael King ‎ (Undid revision 313082578 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 12:05, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Sam Neill ‎ (Undid revision 313082235 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:58, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Whina Cooper ‎ (Undid revision 313067305 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:58, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Māori protest movement ‎ (Undid revision 313067276 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity)
• 11:57, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) 1974 British Commonwealth Games ‎ (Undid revision 313067349 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:56, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Tammy Davis ‎ (Undid revision 313067445 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:55, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) MS Mikhail Lermontov ‎ (Undid revision 313068134 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:54, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Janet Frame ‎ (Undid revision 315192359 by Xxanthippe (talk) restore to a little sanity)
• 11:40, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Gaylene Preston ‎ (Undid revision 313082651 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:40, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Ivan Mauger ‎ (Undid revision 313082813 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:39, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Forgotten Silver ‎ (Undid revision 313082867 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:39, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Costa Botes ‎ (Undid revision 313082879 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:37, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Stickmen (film) ‎ (Undid revision 313082927 by Hu12 (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)
• 11:36, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Bro'Town ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Eaglestorm; restore to a little sanity. (TW)) (top)
• 11:35, 26 September 2009 (hist) (diff) Sione's Wedding ‎ (Undid revision 315220232 by Eaglestorm (talk) restore to a little sanity) (top)

A little WP:POINTY this afternoon Geronimo20?--Hu12 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The long-term resolution to NZ On Screen will require reviewing each link individually, as Themfromspace (talk · contribs) has said. Over time, other editors are going to insert the links where they feel they add to Wikipedia. Blocking Filmtvfan is not going to make this "problem" go away. It just makes the process drawn-out and more painful because we won't have Filmtvfan to help add bio material into the Wikipedia articles where needed. I would have preferred for Geronimo20 to have made this point without being WP:POINTY as I don't agree with some of the links that have been restored. I'm not from New Zealand. I got involved because the way this has been handled is hurting Wikipedia in both current content and in the community spirit needed for future growth. I don't really look it as being anti-New Zealand. The same thing can happen to any subgroup, even those not defined by geography. We should take a hard look at at just how much we really assume good faith and treat new comers if we are to have any chance of fulfiling our vision. UncleDouggie (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Stale block evasion - or not?

Disclaimer: I became aware of Vlad's recent edits and his success in evading the block due to his recent posts in an ArbCom case I am involved in, and I am not a neutral party when it comes to Vlad.

Vlad fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by ArbCom from September 5, 2007 for a year, so till September 5, 2008.

A January 2 2009 CU revealed that he violated his ban by editing as La poet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) during the period he shouldn't have edited (multiple edits in Fall'07, last in the ban period of 06:39, February 12, 2008). While La Poet was blocked, Vlad was not reblocked (why??). In other words, he has succesfully evaded an ArbCom block, and suffered no penalty. He has also been editing since that time, more or less regularly, till now (if he was reblocked at any point, his successive edit would extend the reblock and he would still be blocked now). Granted, we are - I hope - aiming for preventative, not punitive sanctions. But just recently he has edit warred on some articles, and more worryingly, violated BLP on the article which was the crux of the arbcom case that resulted in his 1-year block in 2007 (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Boris_Stomakhin).

So my questions are:

• why wasn't Vlad blocked for block evasion in Jan 2009?
• in more general terms, does it mean that if one is evading a block, and the block duration expires before the evasion is discovered, that person has succeed in gaming Wikipedia system and is now "in the clear"?
• would recent edits by Vlad merit at least a warning of some kind? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus, that you have decided to open your long kept pockets finally open. I wonder, why you being admin havent brought that to here in January 2009? And, please, don't say that you haven't been watching after me all this time

I too would like to clarify that situation. I have edited anyway 8 days in La poet. And... I haven't been editing even after my Arbcom ban lift for very substantial period, which is more than three months.

Whatever decision would be, please consider that Piotrus tries to exculde me from particpation in this Arbcom, where Piotrus, himself, being administrator, among all, was advising sockpuppeteer Molobo and was keeping his sockpuppetry in secret. I would need to participate in the Arbcom, because I would like present the evidence against Piotrus and his cabal member Biophys.Vlad fedorov (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why was the main account not reblocked/have the block reset? That would be found by reviewing the logs of the relevant places at the time - and I don't think that anyone on this board has the appetite to go do that under the circumstances. Since Vlad fedorov is participating in a current RfAr then you might take the opportunity to raise these questions there (noting any lack of response from the community). Personally as well as not wishing to wade through archives from that time period to answer your query I am also reluctant to get involved in any issue that may impinge upon what looks like being a very convoluted ArbCom matter - there will be a need for there to be uninvolved admins available to police whatever ArbCom findings there are, for one thing. If you have any matter that remotely relates to this particular ArbCom situation I would suggest that you request direction from the Committee whether this is a matter that can be dealt with by the community or something that should be included within the ArbCom review. Under the circumstances, I would say that the ban evasion is historical and is very unlikely to be reacted to at this time. Continuing violation of policy should be reported to the relevant board (BLP or 3RR as appropriate) and noted if necessary at the ArbCom proceedings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It was me who filed SPI request at the time. For some reason Moreschi decided to block only secondary account after positive confirmation by Checkuser.Biophys (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

AWB Checkpage

Resolved

Sorry to waste your guys' time; there are entries over 48 hours old on the AutoWikiBrowser checkpage. It says there to mention that here if it happens. Thanks!

No problem; thanks for bringing this up. It should be good now. NW (Talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminbot brfa spam

For those of you that are interested - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Orphaned image deletion bot --Chris 01:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE

Can someone please review the latest reports at WP:AE with regard to AA2 violations? There was no admin reaction there for quite some time. Thanks. Grandmaster 07:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on the Hetoum I and Gazifikator requests, both of which are rather lacking, which might explain admin inaction.  Skomorokh  08:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grandmaster 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because I have also been asked on my talk page: I'm not currently working in AE pending the resolution of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Law's unblock of ChildofMidnight. I see no point in attempting to enforce arbitration decisions as long as it is tolerated that enforcement decisions are unilaterally undone on a whim.  Sandstein  18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sub-pages

Just to be sure, I wanted to post a notice up front here. There's been a discussion going on the talk page for about 24 hours now: Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Sub-pages

A trial run is basically ready to go for this page, so... speak now, or forever hold your piece!
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Piece of what? The pie? My mind? The cake? Or is the cake a lie? MuZemike 07:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DRV backlog...again

Resolved

 – No longer backlogged. Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a backlog at WP:DRV right now, and at least a couple seem quite clear-cut to me. Can someone take a look? Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

VPR about edit notices

Wikipedia:VPR#Edit Notices may end up having a large impact and would like to get more eyes and every ones two cents. β^_command 23:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Block review on User:Agnapostate

I would like some other administrators to review the block (and subsequent talk page lock placed by myself) on Agnapostate (talk · contribs). I proceeded to lock the talk page after it became clear that the blocked user, after a third straight unblock request, continued to antagonize administrators and not addressing the reasons behind his block (i.e. why his edits and editing behavior were or were not against the community's policies and guidelines). If consensus determines the need to unlock the talk page or possibly unblock again (note that the user has been blocked multiple times as shown here), I will not oppose or protest. Thank you, MuZemike 22:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Block looks OK. The guy has now been given an indef block for the third time (20 Sept 2008, 10 August 2009, 22 Sept 2009). I think we have shown enough patience with him. He can write to unblock-en-l for further consideration, and I hope that his future unblock requests are less than 1000 words. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Concur with block - an editor that only seems to focus on the "me" part of community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help with rangeblock

I've never been able to figure these things out, but can someone help me issue a 24-hour block to a range of IPs? I've been getting vandalism from the following, and I think it's the same person:

• 204.145.108.94 (talk · contribs)
• 204.145.108.79 (talk · contribs)‎
• 204.145.108.71 (talk · contribs)

How can I block 204.145.108.whatever? Thanks in advance. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 06:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See Classless Inter-Domain Routing for information on ranges and rangeblocks. The smallest practical range likely to catch all of these would be 204.145.108.64/27 which is a very small range indeed (only 32 addresses). Do you have any more IPs that this person is using, because a wider net MAY need to be cast. But that range will catch all three of these with very minimal collateral damage. If you want to block all of 204.145.108.XXX, then the appropriate range would be 204.145.108.000/24, a 256 address block. Also pretty small and managable. --Jayron32 06:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WHOIS says that the ips resolve to a range 204.145.96.0/20. That's much less manageable but still technically feasible. Protonk (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

Resolved

I have put a comment about possible copyright violation on the Talk:Colonization of the Moon page --Fartherred (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I've removed the material in question. Hut 8.5 20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a neutral admin to assess a "strawpoll" discussion

Hello, not a huge problem here—we just need a neutral and uninvolved admin to read through a "strawpoll" discussion and to determine whether or not a consensus has been reached on a particular issue. The discussion has been quiet for over a week and some editors are starting to ask—"what now?" The link is here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Y Closed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism on Ahmed Barzani article

This particular IP User:152.75.168.26 has been repeatedly removed sourced information about the individual's conversion to Christianity, even though it has been referenced by a credible CIA source. He has left me a message claiming to be Ahmed Barzani's grandson and that he was a Muslim, but without providing any evidence for it. Even though i requested to provide a first hand account to show Ahmed Barzani's religious faith to be Muslim, he has not done so, and inspite of my repeated warnings he has vandalized the article more than three times already. See the history page. As such, i request any concerned administrator to block him. Thanks. Joyson Noel (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone please hurry up. He is busy making a nuisance of himself at the article. Joyson Noel (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page full-protected on the wrong version(tm) for three days. Please discuss instead of reverting over and over. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would, of course, appreciate other admins looking this over to see if my take on it is correct, as there appears to be some dissent to my view that it's a content dispute. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Create article with a blacklisted title

Resolved

Please create the article "Epic Fail (House)". It is for the episode of House that airs today (it's linked to from here). I cannot create the article myself because "Epic Fail" is blacklisted in article titles. Gary King (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Created after verifying at http://www.tv.com/house/show/22374/episode.html. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there somewhere that lists "blacklisted titles"? I've never even heard of such a thing before now. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Titleblacklist — RockMFR 23:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I have blocked Pretty_Green (talk · contribs) as a compromised account. Although there is no solid evidence of this, the account made an obvious vandalism edit after thousands of constructive contributions. Please let me know if this is the correct course of action. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems proper to me.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked per an email I received which I shall be quoting below (I don't expect that it was meant to be confidential).

Hello

Just to confirm that the account was not compromised; they were just stupid vandal edits. The edit to Talk:Roman Polanski[46] was a misguided attempt to use shock humour; I actually tried to revert it but someone else got there before me. The edit to Turkey (bird)[47] was just plain silly and the sort of thing I admit to doing occaisionaly as an anon, usually from home, as these edits were. I hadn't realised I was logged in.

Anyway, I'd rather like to be unblocked - as you'll note, there are over 2 500 useful edits from this account and it would be a shame to lose my watchlist!

Apologies once more

Pretty Green

I note that on their user talk page, they say "Sorry, those edits were drunk messing around at home but in bad taste; I apologise." I imagine that the user has certainly learned their lesson from this, and that they will not be repeating it, on an account or on an IP. NW (Talk) 15:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies and thanks --Pretty Green (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Software oddity

Not sure whether this is the right board to report it to, but there's an oddity with the new feature showing blocks on a conributions page. If you go to, say, Special:Contributions/212.183.136.192, you see a box "This user is currently blocked". Yet the block is an old one (31 hours in July) and the IP address is visibly not blocked. Mister Collins (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Even odder -- apparently it's browser or user dependent. Mister Collins (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything - maybe it's the cache? Tim Song (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that Mister Collins (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for sock puppetry per the CheckUser results at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mathsci. MuZemike 07:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

trying to start a page called SJSM

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

MFD process check

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs testing

http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/09/flaggedrevs-test-wiki-awaits-you/ --MZMcBride (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

user jaimeizquierdo

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaime Izquierdo, Artist, PAFA'85

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD closing

Resolved

 – Closure was based on apparent consensus. If you have any more problems, take to deletion review.

Are admins allowed to close AFDs based own purely on their own personal opinion and completely ignore the AFD discussion? Because that seems to have happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators doesn't seem to have been followed at all.--Otterathome (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That AFD close is within policy... virtually every vote was for keeping the article, and MoP closed it as such. In addition, I see you have a history of bad-faith nominations... Until It Sleeps ^alternate 17:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to close AFDs based on strengths of arguments, not head/vote count.--Otterathome (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no other reasonable option than to close that as keep. To close it as "delete" would have gone directly against consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus because they didn't dispute the nomination, and if nobody disputes it then it should be deleted. If you don't believe me read it yourself.--Otterathome (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

4. When in doubt, don't delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean ignore the rest of the guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Going by numbers, there was unanimous consensus to keep, and I can see no real reason to discount any votes in particular for failure to comply with AfD voting guidelines. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments as I've already said twice above, none of the votes had anything to do with the nomination statement or were policy/guideline based.--Otterathome (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what? Votes do not have to directly address the nomination statement, they just need to provide sufficient rationales to explain their reasoning. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The close was valid. Period. If you have a problem with an AFD close, go to WP:DRV first, not here. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So the admin judged that WP:ILIKEIT + WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS > failure of both general & web notability guidelines? I'm not taking it to DRV because the admin isn't responding.--Otterathome (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is this marked as resolved? The closing admin is not responding so I can't take it to DRV yet.--Otterathome (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Em, if you're really that concerned just go ahead and do it. MoP will get to it when he comes online.  GARDEN  17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. He can't take it to DRV because: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Apologies then.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

<- Might be worth noting that arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay and as such not gospel.  GARDEN  17:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It also might be worth mentioning that WP:PUFF seems to work very well to stop articles being deleted as shown here,--Otterathome (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Also an essay. The close was correct, let us move onward and upward. Thanks,  GARDEN  22:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ugh. Don't take this to DRV. In order to have the deletion decision overturned you would have to argue why ignoring unanimity in responses would have been a better way to read consensus. I don't suspect there is enough grist for the mill here. I would endorse this if it came to DRV. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• As a point of order, there have been occasions where articles have been deleted where only the nominator said to delete and everyone who responded said "keep", as this AFD shows, and it was unanimously endorsed at DRV too. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Protonk, AFDs are not supposed to be closed by numbers but by strength of arguments.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• So we're supposed to simply ignore consensus at a whim and do what the nominator wants? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I guess it's just luck if you get an admin who doesn't follow the guidelines closing the AFD. Any admins who would close this as keep, please express why, but also don't comment before reading everything that has already been said here. This is only here and not DRV because the admin won't respond and that makes me question their actions, or lack of.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Otter, the next time you assume bad faith from an editor who hasn't been on in two days, I'm blocking you for disruption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • What is questioning ability got to do with assuming bad faith?--Otterathome (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      • What does not being here have to do with ability? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Admins are expected to respond to their actions when challenged about them. If they are not on long enough to give responses, then they probably shouldn't be an admin.--Otterathome (talk) 19:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • His very last diff before signing off was a response to your question. It's not his problem that you didn't like the answer you got. Please demonstrate that you are capable of working within community norms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't understand why we bother having guidelines if they can all just be ignored because of personal beliefs.--Otterathome (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Please stop assuming bad faith. The world does not hate you no matter how harsh you make it sound. Please, just move on, nothing is going to change here.  GARDEN  20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Also note that arguments to avoid is explicitly not a guideline.  GARDEN  20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                • WP:WEB, WP:N and WP:DGFA are, which have all been ignored by the closing admin, which in turn has shown that the Wikipedia:Deletion policy has not been followed.--Otterathome (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • The fact is the community did not agree these were viable reasons to delete the article and thus the article was not deleted. What is the problem here?  GARDEN  20:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
                    • 5 users who vote keep on every one of my web-video related nominations is not 'the community', it's a group that was originally built by off-site canvassing.--Otterathome (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• <- Oh come on. Please, all of these conspiracy theories are getting dull. Please, drop the ABF and move on.  GARDEN  20:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you looked in to it you would see it's true. All but one of my afds have been exclusively edited by the same users, so it's impossible for them not to be deleted if admins do a head count every time.--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt a particular group of users is out to sabotage your AfD nominations. That said, you seem rather focused on this "head count" bit. Yes, you're correct; consensus does not rely on numbers. But there comes a time when you can't just say "All of these people are wrong" and delete an article against unanimous consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to compile a report to prove that my AFDs have only been participated in by the same users? It's like trying to knock down a church and the only people who get a voice are the Christians that go there, so knocking it down becomes an impossibility.--Otterathome (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No need. It's well-known that AfD is largely run by a group of regulars, but again, I don't see any evidence that they're singling out your nominations. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I will tomorrow, see Mathieas (talk · contribs · count), they already tried stopping me nominating anymore via an ANI thread that went on for a over a week, but nothing ever happened because I did nothing wrong except nominate articles they care about for deletion. If deletion policy/guidelines were followed for this particular afd it would've definately been deleted anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading that AfD was quite depressing, several editors asserted notability without providing sources and others merely attacked the motivations of the nominator. A complete lack of policy and source-based discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for not being available sooner, Otterathome. I've been fairly occupied with university, and, unfortunately, Wikipedia does not get priority over real-life studies. I apologize if my close seems opinion-based to you; it isn't. Rather, I used my discretion; a calculated decision based on how I perceived the situation and how I felt it should be dealt with. I apologize if I didn't act in a way which would appease you. If you'd like to open up a DR, please feel free to do so.

That being said, I'm not all for a topic ban. I don't think this would do anything but harm. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 07:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Moved From Ban Discussion: As a user who has been involved in a number of interactions with Otterathome, I would implore those making the decision below to not wait to see if he "continues to fail to 'get it'." I believe that time has already come. He has already received a number of warnings on his talk page (and I believe on the ANI) to stop this behavior, and yet it continues. He is incredibly rude to other users, calling them "sheep" or calling their posts "useless" or "long rants." He continuously disrupts the wiki by repeatedly renominating articles for deletion when he does not get the outcome he desires. For instance, within a two month span, he nominated LG15: The Last for deletion, then demanded a merge on the talk page, then renominated it for deletion, then brought it to deletion review. A similar thing happened with Jackson Davis (minus the merge discussion). The issue has been raised at WQA and ANI (and I believe there is a new thread at WQA for further violations of civility). Both were closed without any resolution. He has been warned, the behavior has been discussed, and yet it continues. I do not know what the right action to take here is exactly; all I care about is that the behavior is dealt with effectively. I am sure that you all are more familiar with what measures would work in this circumstance. I just hope that you will take them. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We just got the following edit from Otter, directed at MuZemike: "Please don't close anymore AFDs if you don't understand different types of sources and WP:N." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Community topic ban proposal - Otterathome deletion discussions

Since Otter is bent on demonstrating that he cannot participate constructively in deletion debates, I would like to propose the following remedies for community discussion.

1. Otterathome is barred for one year from renominating for deletion articles that have previously survived a deletion discussion.
2. Otterathome is not barred from opening deletion discussions.
3. Otterathome is barred for one year from responding to anyone else's comments in a properly-opened deletion discussion anywhere besides the discussion's talk page.
4. Otterathome is barred for one year from challenging anyone's qualifications to opine in a deletion discussion. If it's that blatant, someone else will take care of it.

Note that per Wikipedia:Community ban, only uninvolved editors should be involved in reaching consensus here, so the rest of us need to sit on our hands. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also note that per Wikipedia:Community ban is if a has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, so do that first before proposing this.-Otterathome (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't strike it out, it just succeeds in looking ugly.  GARDEN  21:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You just proved my point for me, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Otter, please do not edit other people's statements, even if you disagree with them. SirFozzie (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is the best way forward here. It's complicated, and people have to remember it.. how about just blocking him liberally if he continues to fail to "get it"? Yes, he's being quite unreasonable, but I'm not sure this kind of conduct problem would limit itself to only one area. Friday (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocking would be easier, yes, but I don't think it would be better. Apart from his inability to back away from the horse, he's doing pretty good work, and I don't want to stop that: that's why I made explicit that I don't think he should be banned from opening discussions.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with any kind of ban, that AfD discussion was deeply problematic. Otterathome requested sources and cited policy, the voters (because that's all they were) utterly failed to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tim... I think Otter has every right to take this to DRV if he can show that the administrator didn't take into account the actual issues and instead went by counting heads. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Otterbreak

I have listed facts and data at User:Otterathome/Deletion_discussions. So any uninvolved editors don't have to do much research of their own.--Otterathome (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that would be nice, if it were accurate. I did not vote all keep -- I prodded one article you tagged for notability, and it was deleted when the prod expired. Also, you call User:Backslash Forwardslash a "sock admin". I'd suggest backing that up or changing it post-haste.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1st keep, 2nd keep. Sock admin comment (User:Pastor_Theo) fixed.--Otterathome (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• As one of the involved editors, I will briefly chime in to say that the table doesn't show a full picture of what has gone on here. I won't expand on that unless requested, because I'm an involved editor (and even accused at one point of being part of Lonelygirl15 by Otter!!) The reason the Tubefilter AFDs discussion is getting some flack now is because at that point everyone who commented was just sick of dealing with this crap.--Milowent (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't included the Articles for deletion/Becki Kregoski. An article that had all deletion votes, with 2 deletion votes from editors who have taken part in other deletion discussion with you Otterathome. Also in your deletion discussion page you missed out that i took part in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last deletion discussion --KindredPhantom (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So because some articles were written about things I took part in on the LG15Today blog some time ago, I was a user "canvassed" from that site? Interesting conclusion... --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've stayed out of a lot of these discussions because I was the one otter accused of stalking (oddly, looking at his table he seems to spend a good deal of time tracking what I do online); however, I'd just like to make a few points, which again were left out of his table. First, he has a history of trying to undermine the legitimacy of anyone who opposes his view. (I know I'm supposed to link some diffs here, but, honestly, if one is so uninterested as to not go and look at the pages in question, I doubt they will look at 30 diffs.) Second, he consistently feels the need to comment on and discredit every vote that goes against him in the afd discussions. (Again, just go look). Third, he has one at least two occasions nominated an article for afd for improper reasons. (The Mesh Flinders article was nominated right after a post on an off wiki blog talked about the Jackson Davis article being saved and someone remarked that it was odd the Mesh Flinders article hadn't been nominated. The Vincent Caso article was nominated with an accusation of stalking against me.) Fourth, he has targeted a certain area (web series) repeatedly. When an article is voted keep, he takes it to DRV, when it passes he then renominates it. Both the Jackson Davis article and the LG15: The Last article were renominated within a few weeks of the previous nomination. The reason the Tubefilter afd discussion is less erudite then the standard Wiki discussion is that by that point his pattern was well-known to those who were paying attention and, honestly, probably a little fed up. In that particular discussion I made what I still believe is a sound argument for keeping, the said argument to which otter quickly chimed in with a dismissive and rather uncivil reply, which had become par for the course.

Honestly, I do not expect the administrators to do anything about his behavior; however, I do ask that those administrators who do comment in the below discussion not to simply dismiss those with whom otter has picked a fight, for that is what he has done through his actions, his attitude, and his comments, as a bunch of unhappy fans. Thank you to those who took the time to read this post. Mathieas (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, the only thing that list qualifies for is "libelous". It violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NEWBIES and Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous#Second-class treatment for IP editors. It also makes false assertions about at least my origins, and is all around a whole bunch of spin and false implications.
If this didn't exist already, I'd file an ANI over that.
I'll leave it to the administration to deal with it for the moment, but rest assured, if this list is considered acceptable, I will register, solely for the purpose of keeping an up-to-date Otter-policy-violation list, to counter his bullshit. Before, he was annoying. Now, it's enough.
How many people does a single editor have to attack on Wikipedia a day until the administration finally realizes there's a behavioral problem?

~ Renegade - 80.171.128.18 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

Well I've read everything here and firstly I would like to tell everyone to get some WP:TROUT. My comments/observations are as follows:

1. Otter appears to be slightly obsessed with getting things deleted.
2. Otter actually had a very strong argument on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tubefilter matter. None of the "Keeps" that I read gave any valid argument which contradicted the AFD nom.
3. Otter can be seriously annoying at times. (This is my *opinion* and I'm not going to defend it or debate it). But being annoying is not the same as being a WP:DICK. Being a dick is likely to get you blocked (for disruption or NPA or whatever). Being annoying is completely legal.
4. A community ban seems unjustifiable. If Otter's conduct is really so bad then we should be discussing a user conduct block, not a subject area ban. And if his conduct isn't so bad (which is my feeling at the moment) then maybe asking him nicely to ease up a little is a place to start.
5. If all that fails, then just grin and bear it. A lot of the time Otter actually makes a good point. Granted he could learn a lot about diplomacy (particularly in how useful it is in getting people to agree with you), but he has to actually *want* to be guided on that subject before anyone can offer advice. And despite being undiplomatic and occasionally abrasive, he IS still a good editor. Manning (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Involved Editor Reply

At what point does multiple violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and the meeting of two, if not three, characteristics under Wikipedia:TE#Characteristics_of_problem_editors stop being annoying and start being disruptive? I'm just wondering if there's some sort of rule or maybe it's time to consider Otter disruptive? --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Would anyone (apart from people involved people listed Here) mind if I re-nominate Tubefilter for deletion? Last time only fans of this content, and the author took part, so it was very problematic.--Otterathome (talk) 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to say who gets to opine here, Otter. Open another AfD on Tubefilter without going to DRV first, and I block for disruption. DRV is the appropriate venue here, as you very well know, and given comments in this thread, you have an excellent chance of your opinion prevailing there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wanted neutral input, and blocking somebody your in dispute with would directly violate the admin policy (WP:UNINVOLVED). If you continue your threats against me whilst still being involved in a dispute, it is unlikely you will remain as an administrator for much longer. I already noted this at Wikipedia:Administrator review/SarekOfVulcan yet you continue to do so.--Otterathome (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So, are you going to waste time arguing with me, or are you going to take the correct next step and open the DRV? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As Sarek says, the correct action here is DRV, and you are quite likely to win the argument there. However a relist at AFD would certainly merit a block for showing complete disregard for Wikipedia procedure. You clearly know your policies and guidelines, so you are no doubt familiar with the one that say "Do not disrupt Wikipedia just to make a point". Go to DRV and the matter will clear itself up quietly and without drama. Manning (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not going to DRV because the articles sources have changed considerably since the AFD started, and that is a common argument I've already seen in deletion discussions and is likely to pop-up again at a DRV. As the closing admin is not responding, I have been unable to discuss it with them, which is a requirement for listing it at DRV. Plus, if it goes through another AFD it gives the editors a greater oppurtunity to prove if the article is notable enough to pass our notability guidelines. So the likely result is that the DRV will turn in to another AFD.--Otterathome (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But I am responding. I've stated that I'm fine with a DR repeatedly (even though you don't even need my consent; it's your choice), so I'm not sure where the bottleneck is here.

Also, I'm not sure what merit a discussion between us would bring here; I thought that deletion was unwarranted (per consensus and discretion, not counting heads; just throwing that in), while you clearly disagree. I'm not going to change your mind, and I don't wish to, so if you'd like the decision reviewed, feel free to go ahead.

As an unrelated note, please focus on the issue at hand here. There's no need to coach Sarek on what he can or can't do and make veiled threats about removing his sysop rights. That just introduces unnecessary animosity into this. There's no need for any hard feelings to come of this; we're all friends, regardless of our feelings on a web streaming service. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the one making block threats.--Otterathome (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Tubefilter per request, though I expect it be relisted at AFD again anyway.--Otterathome (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Casliber

See apology. discuss here Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal wants to show last year's selection?

Portal:Christianity has had a scripture selected for this month, but the portal itself to me is showing a red link to last October's selection. Does anybody know what the bleep that's about? John Carter (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's showing me Portal:Christianity/Selected article/October 2009 as it should.  Skomorokh, barbarian  01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock check

I attempted to issue a rangeblock to 93.142.144.0/20 (4096 ip addresses) after a particularly nasty NPA issue and block evasion by Orijentolog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've never done a rangeblock before. Can someone double check my work to ensure I did it properly? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean to do 93.142.0.0/20? What's the range you're trying to block? Tan | 39 15:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

According to my calculations that will block 93.142.144.* - 93.142.159.* inclusive. I can only see six IP addresses being used anonymously in that range, and three of them are definitely your user, so as rangeblocks go it doesn't look too bad. It's part of a bigger /16 range, so it would be worth checking if a month is too long - if the user gets assigned other IPs in the range. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

93.142.144.0/20 is right. That's what I get from calculating the range. MuZemike 03:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User 85.216.25.203

I'm minded to give 85.216.25.203 (talk · contribs) a 1 or 3 day block. Although this IP editor hasn't vandalised since the uw-van4im was issued, contribution show that they clearly aren't here to make useful contributions. Maybe a short block would show them that vandalism is not tolerated. Just not sure of the Wikiquette in blocking when no vandalism has occurred after a final warning. Mjroots (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea is to protect the encyclopedia, so you would have to make it long enough to prevent vandalism as well as signal to the contributor that these kinds of edis are not wanted. If it looks to be the same person each time, then the argument for the 1 day block on anonymous IP does not strongly apply, and it can be longer. I would suggest you block them for a week to make sure they notice. All edits are vandalism so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme. I've blocked the IP for a week. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee code of conduct

Proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee code of conduct. Input would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for official unblock

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

As the community may be aware, I am currently the subject of a limited unblock so that I can participate in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list, due to it being alleged that I was stalked and harrassed onwiki by this group of editors. The reason for my indef block by Good Ol'Factory is the perception that I issued a legal threat, and he agreed to my limited unblock so that I could participate in the Arbcom. And hence I have been busy presenting evidence. A proposed decision was raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#Russavia in which 2 Arbs supported, 1 opposed, and 6 abstained - 2 of which stated their belief I should be able to edit more freely than suggested at the proposed decision, and FayssalF noted that once the perceived legal threat is retracted this will free me up. At Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision#On_Russavia Thatcher has also posted something regarding my indef block, which Arb User:Coren has stated "My own position is simply that, at this time, I would prefer to not judge the appropriateness of the sanctions that were placed in the past."

At User_talk:Russavia#Alleged_legal_threats_issued_by_myself_and_unblock_request I have made it clear that there was no legal threat, and in case it was still construed as there being one, I have completely retracted it such. Inline with Wikipedia:NLT#Conclusion_of_legal_threat, I am hereby requesting that I be officially unblocked.

Please note, that I am unblocked now, but am limited to only participating in the Arb case. At the time of that conditional unblocking, WP:NLT had not been fully dealt with. I also understand that I will be under the topic ban as handed down by User:Sandstein which restricts me from editing anything at all to do with, or which even mentions Russia or Russian people, in any article across Wikipedia, not matter what the subject, etc, etc. However, I am willing to restrict myself from editing EE topics in general, defined as ex-USSR/Warsaw Pact nations, so that AN needn't see itself as being in conflict with any decision from the Arbcom.

I am also thinking that any unblock would require blocking me again, and then unblocking to make the unconditional unblock in its place, so that there is no confusion.

Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the details on this to comment one way or another, but the "full unblock" doesn't strictly need notation. If you want notation, a 1 second block in your block log will suffice.--Tznkai (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The above wording as given by Russavia (talk · contribs) seems like a reasonable proposal. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Tznkai, a 1 second block would suffice, just so there is no confusion, as there is a possibility of it somewhere along the line. --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with unblocking since the legal threat has been retracted. In any case, I've notified Good Ol'factory of this thread so that they can say what they think. Jafeluv (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Other than mild concern that Russavia is acting beyond the scope of his conditional unblock by posting here I would also be inclined to unblock now the legal threat is retracted (and I am going to IAR re the posting here.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to point out that Russavia conveniently skips linking to the block message he got and the actual discussion, which eventually led to aforementioned block, both tell a lot more than this humble unblock request. For me it seems that this legal threat was only the tip of a iceberg, shouldn't his request for unblocking address also the the other concerns, not only the legal threat part? Põhja Konn (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

@Põhja Konn (talk · contribs) - Yes, I agree with you that Russavia should address these other issues as well. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Pohja Konn is currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Possible_sockpuppet_of_the_team_members as a possible sock/meat puppet of User:Digwuren who is an involved party in this case. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has also noticed some similarities. As to any "other issues", not related to WP:NLT, I will be addressing them at Arbcom as part of evidence. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a valid point here. The block message noted issues of incivility, wikilawyering, and disruption, in addition to the legal threat issues. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Decline the official unblock. Russavia, I would advise you to simply focus on the ArbCom case, and abide by the current terms of your unblock. You have a pretty full plate right now, and it is in your interest to keep a low profile. Given that your block log is a pretty clear illustration of someone who can't keep a low profile, I see no incentive to grant your request at this time. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After thinking it over and in view of the incomplete response to the block message as noted above, I'd have to agree with the decline by Hiberniantears (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above; the reasons for the block (actually called an "indefinite ban" by Good Olfactory) go quite a bit beyond the legal threat that has now been retracted. Any unban request should satisfactorily address all reasons for the ban, and be made after the current arbitration case is decided. Since Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs) performed the conditional unblock, I'm notifying him of this thread.  Sandstein  21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support unblock: The matter now seems resolved, I am also concerned that Sandstein is here speaking in authoritative tones. Bearing in mind, his implication in the Eastern European Mailing List case, it would probably be wise if he too kept a low profile until he has been exonerated. Giano (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exonerated from what? I haven't delved deeply into the EE case evidence recently, but from what I've seen the absolute limit of the accusations "against" Sandstein are that others attempted to, and may have had some success with, snowing him as to their accusations against Russavia. Nothing in that implicates Sandstein himself in any way, and its disingenuous to suggest that he needs to be "exonerated". Nathan ^T 22:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've highlighted other recent disruption of this sort by Giano at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Workshop#Request to arbitrators by Sandstein and would appreciate appropriate enforcement action in regard to it.  Sandstein  22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer to wait with such an unban until after the Arbcom case is over, but I would be sympathetic towards granting it. Even Russavia's opponents acknowledge that he has the potential of being a constructive contributor, and has been one in the past. Whatever disruptive conduct there has been on his part during the last months, we now know for a fact that it happened after months of intense, organised harassment, a situation of tension that would naturally bring bad behaviour to the fore. Once this situation will hopefully have been resolved, I tend to think that Russavia may deserve a chance to show he can edit peacefully if left in peace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Sandstein's comments must be dismissed from this debate. It is clear to everyone that Russavia was harassed beyond undurance from the EU Mailing list, so is it fair and just that one who was supported and encouraged by the members of that list (ie Sandstein) is allowed to pass comment in such arrogant and authoriatative tones? If Russavia is to remain blocked (as many here seem to want) - then it is only fair that Sandstein loses his tools for at least the duration of the case while this matter is fully investigated. Who knows what sort of person is still supporting and encouraging Sandstein in his actions and comments? Giano (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per Fut Perf; "Russavia may deserve a chance to show he can edit peacefully if left in peace" for the reasons stated above. Therefore, I don't mind an unblock that is a bit less restrictive in this case - it would hopefully act to reduce tension, rather than increase it. The unblock should probably only allow him to edit in other areas that are uncontroversial or unlikely to lead to controversy, but that is obviously a judgement call he'll need to make in any edit he makes outside of the case. Effectively, it would be his responsibility to remember the sentence I've quoted and ensure he does not participate in or escalate further disputes while the current case is ongoing. If he fails in this regard, chances are that he'll be back to the limited unblock, or worse, completely blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• This should be handled via the arbitration case, I think, as a motion or request for clarification. The arbitrators already know a lot more about the details of this situation than any of us do and would be much better placed to give guidance. I have no opinion either way myself. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not so certain about this – right now the arbitrators seem to be quite busy just looking at what the "other side" was doing on its nefarious mailing list. We know enough about that to say that there was a significant amount of foul play directed against Russavia. But Russavia's own actions are here for all to see, so I don't see why the community shouldn't be able to handle it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion I think Russavia should be unblocked because (1) there is plenty of evidence that he was the target of a persistent campaign of harassment coordinated off-wiki, and (2) Sandstein appears to have been "used" by the mailing list cabal to settle a score with Russavia. Administrators working WP:AE need to be especially careful to make sure their services are not obtained through the presentation of selective or biased evidence from partisans to a dispute. Russavia, can you confirm that you will abide by all Wikipedia policies, and steel yourself against any further provocations? "They made me behave badly" is never a good excuse. Jehochman ^Talk 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have to object to the assumption that I was "used" by anybody in this case. I originally topic-banned Russavia following a report on WP:ANI (not AE) that he had made a threat to "fight to the death" against another editor ([48]). I later extended the scope of his topic ban because of his unwillingness to observe its original limits ([49]). Later, another admin, Good Olfactory (talk · contribs), indefinitely blocked Russavia for his poor conduct in an ensuing ANI debate ([50]). In each case, it was Russavia's own edits, and not the conduct of anybody else (on- or offwiki) that led to the sanctions against him. Should the arbitration case determine that others improperly coordinated their actions offwiki (and the mail archive now circulating on the Internet, which I have only very briefly looked through, does seem to indicate this) I expect and hope that ArbCom will appropriately sanction them for it, but that does not excuse or mitigate Russavia's own conduct for which he was sanctioned. – I also disagree with your warning about "biased evidence": an edit is an edit and has to be judged on its own merits, no matter who provides the diff or why. Selective evidence may be presented, of course, but we must simply observe auditur et altera pars – the accused editor has to have the opportunity to make a statement and to correct any inaccurate impression that the evidence may give.  Sandstein  18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, as far as I am concerned, I'm fully convinced that you acted responsibly and on the basis of the best of your understanding of the situation; no blame is on you. Still, those very actions by Russavia you cite, the "fight you to the death" edit and the following querulous resistance to the sanctions, are precisely the kinds of things I'd expect from a harassment victim as the result of months-long frustration. And believe me, I know how it feels to be harassed, and how it can affect one's behaviour. That's why I'm saying, once the field is clear again, a fresh chance might be in order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In principle, since our sanctions are preventative and not punitive, I'm always (well, once per editor, in general) open to giving people a new start, but only if they convincingly explain that they understand what the problem with their conduct is and that they won't repeat it. And, frankly, the more of my time an editor wastes through interminable wikilawyering and ADMIN ABUSE DRAMA!!!, to the point of being indef-blocked for it in this case, the more convincing I expect the explanation to be. I agree that we should wait for the result of the case, though; it might indeed lead us to conclude that mitigating circumstances should be considered as well.  Sandstein  20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait until EEML concludes. Until the ArbComm case finishes we shouldn't address Russavia's unban, since it may end up (very unlikely, but still possible) that ArbComm may overturn the ban on him as a result of harassment or some othert remedy exonerating him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

'Support formal unblocking: I do not see how unbanning Russavia would harm the project. Surely, he would not disrupt the project in the middle of his ArbCom and if he do disrupt there are many eyes watching him as well as many block buttons that ready to click. On the other hand, he is a prolific editor and his contributions benefit the project. The last I heard is that blockins are not punitive Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On the evidence page of the current Arbcom case I've explained why I believe A. Bakharev is a biased admin when it comes to preventing certain users from getting blocked, or getting users unblocked. Grey Fox (talk) 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This thread is still ongoing? Russavia, would you be willing to abide by a topic ban for the duration of the EEML case?--Tznkai (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes Tznkai, as I stated above, I would agree to a far wider topic ban than what was placed on me by Sandstein. This would cover all EE articles. But I will leave it up to others whether they think that this is a fair thing or not. Also, it should be noted, that Arbcom have basically made it clear than any unblocking of me at the moment is in the hands of the community, and there has been no indication after a request to User:Daniel that this would indeed be addressed by Arbcom, and it does seem that they are busy investigating the email archives at present, meaning that I may remain blocked for some months. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment (blocking admin). I would not support a lifting of the block. The legal threat was not the only issue, as has been noted, and just because an ArbCom case is underway on related issues does not negative the reasons for the block. I think we should let the ArbCom run its course and it's probable that they will address this issue. As I stated in evidence there, if they do not lift/adjust the block, it would be my expectation that the default situation would apply—that it would still stand. We should also adopt the default position here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• I would support a lifting of the block. As has been noted above, there will be many eyes on Russavia. Should he step out of line, the current situation can be reimposed pending the conclusion of the case. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, uh, did Russavia get officially unblocked, or did he "choose" to unblock himself [51], [52]? Or wait, lemme guess, the evil cabal tricked him into making those edits. Or, as is more likely, he's just trying to test what he can get away with. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with those edits, it's just that they do illustrate pretty clearly that it's Russavia's own actions that land him into trouble, rather than some nefarious plots. Of course, if he did get unblocked, then nm.radek (talk) 08:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Radeksz is named in the Arbcom case. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I sure am. I figured everyone here would be aware of that. I don't see how that changes anything.radek (talk) 08:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, I'm not saying that editors named in the case can't comment re this issue. However, I think that they should identify this fact themselves for clarity. There is an "involvement" issue here as far as I can tell. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy that Russavia went ahead on his own like this, but maybe it's just a useful signal that we must finally come to some resolution here. As far as I can see, there is a "no consensus" situation here between admins who would favour some form of restricted un-ban, some admins who would prefer to adjourn it until after the arbcom case, and some who are against an un-ban. Now, please somebody remind me, is the existing status quo supposed to be a "normal" community ban, where a no-consensus situation would default to "banned as long as no admin is willing to unblock" (i.e. anybody favouring lifting could now go ahead and do it), or is it supposed to be a special arbcom-backed "discretionary sanction" thing with extra teeth to keep it in place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"went ahead on his own"? Went ahead of what exactly? And apparently a user blatantly (and in accordance with his previous threats) violating his block is a "useful signal" of some sort. Well, actually it is. But probably not a useful signal that he should be unblocked.radek (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You stay out of this. You are the last person on this project who has any standing for commenting on this. I'm saying I haven't made up my mind yet about how this should be handled, but one thing I know, I don't want advice from you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any extra teeth in this situation, though, I really don't see any point in this when Russavia has gone back to editing in the mainspace anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I proclaim the block lifted for it has served its purpose and is no longer useful. Whatever topic ban was in place remains, and may be appealed separately via the arbitration case or via other legitimate means. Radeksz, you are hereby topic banned from Russavia, except for your participation in the arbitration case, for the duration of that case. You are not to comment on, report on, wikihound, or otherwise annoy Russavia. Should Russavia show the extreme poor judgement of engaging Radeksz, please leave me a diff and I will deal with that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 1 October 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.

Wikipedia_talk:User_categories#Guideline status, eyeballs needed

There is an open RFC dealing with the mechanics of policy creation. It needs some input. Wikipedia_talk:User_categories#Guideline status. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Candide problems

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User:DreamGuy

I would request that administrators keep an eye on Candide if they can. This article went through an extensive FAC to determine various aspects and conforming to the MoS. Right now, there is fighting over adding of a tag claiming that the "plot" section is too long. The claim is that the page violates this section, which refers to pages that are only about plot. It seems like it is quickly degenerating into edit warring, point violating, and fighting in edit summaries instead of building consensus for such tagging and tag removing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Confused

I'm pretty new to this, but I've been trying to clean up Ouachita Baptist University along with some others, and today 67.242.41.170 (talk) came in and reverted many many edits for some reason and then posted on my talk page. I'm not really sure why. Is this a bot? Cmiych (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When users edit without logging in to Wikipedia, their IP address shows up in lieu of a username; so 67.242.41.170 is either an unregistered user, or someone who forgot to log in. I looked at the history of that article and his unexplained reverts of all your edits seemed odd and unnecessary. I see you've reverted him since. If this continues you should try to start a discussion with him on his talk page (he might not be aware of your response on your talk page). Equazcion (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Birgitte SB's soapbox

I am can't even articulate to all of you how disheartened I am by the recent revelations of admins. First Piotrus and then undertow & friends. Yesterday at EE arbcom, I futilely tried to get EE list members to understand the unacceptability of making ANI reports about suspicions of shared accounts while keeping mum about Tymek's account sharing overtures. This I thought would be an obviously clearcut issue any admin who wasn't named Piotrus. Just now I stumbled on the archived ANI report about undertow which I didn't read entirely, but I gather several admins who regularly participate in ANI kept mum about. That blows yesterday's confidence out the door. How many of these admins felt free to promote the "company line" against sockpuppeting editors they weren't friends with I didn't look into. I don't think I want know. I can only imagine that most of them would have condemned Piotrus's gaming of system while gaming it themselves. Of course these admin weren't that bad, I mean at least they weren't nationalists gaming the system, right? Wrong. They are all in the same league as Piotrus, minus the boldness brought on by years of escaping accountability.

Damn effective leaders, pity about the integrity.

But they didn't harm any articles, you say? Go right now and read Piotrus's evidence.

The heart the matter is this. You see a friend caught in a bad rule, you work to fucking change the rule. You do not rig things so your friend is excused and screw the rest of the world. This is the shit that is killing this place. When you get down to the heart of the EE list, the heart of what drives the Battlegrounds, the heart of what makes people insanely dedicate themselves to subverting an encyclopedia it is all it built on when someone decided to compromise their integrity to protect a friend. And you know what the result always is? The friend expects further compromises; others are drawn in; the group becomes bound by guilt; everyday rules start to appear optional to weaker members; an !attack on a group member must be squashed before it all leaks out. It always leaks out. The friend is worse off than they were in the beginning and a whole group of additional people has been compromised with backsplash. And confidence in system falls another notch and somewhere someone loses their mind and is compelled to write a bot to vandalize articles. Well maybe not the last one. But we really can't afford sink much lower here in regards to confidence. If something on Wikipedia isn't working for your friends, then tackle the issue and evangelize and poke and prod till it will work for anyone, including your friends, or else resign your adminship and cater to your friends all you like. That is the deal with adminship.--BirgitteSB 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I do hear your concerns, but having been involved to one degree or another on at least a dozen of these situations, I can speak from the experience that if you are the voice in the darkness, you will get beaten senseless and even if you are successful in exposing the corruption, the friends of the person you expose will remember your name and eventually you will have enough enemies that they will drive you off the site. I have never seen someone actually be a reformer and not be destroyed, and I have probably seen a good three dozen people try. I sleep at night by sending the improprieties I know of to arbcom and letting the guilt of inaction rest on their shoulders. MBisanz ^talk 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, on a purely selfish personal stress level, I always like to point at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry where my following the sockpuppet policy to the letter resulted in a 212kb discussion which I became the bad guy and the sockpuppeteer was unblocked by a now-arbcom member within 8 hours. By the third time I put myself through that wringer, I decided I had better things to do with my life than roll a boulder up a hill. MBisanz ^talk 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading this makes Wiki sound a lot like a virtual Soviet Union politically. It's sad that there are different rules for different people and cliques of pals can flout the rules and laugh about it but people who have no powerful or vociferous friends are shown the door. The same rules should apply to everyone whether they have lots of powerful pals or not. I guess human nature just is what it is and always will be though. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. The choice is not between secretly protecting your friend and being a bad admin or revealing all actions that are out of sync with policy and being a good admin. The choice is between being a consistent admin or not being an admin. Because the desysop is only a matter of time. If you think the sockpuppetry policy is bogus, and you are trying to gather support for reform and pointing out its shortcomings when they apply to situations brought to ANI, I don't expect you to rat out your friend who is out of step with the part of the policy you want to change. But if you block people for sockpuppetry or comment in ANI cases that involve sockpuppetry without mentioning your disagreement with the policy then you better not be keeping mum about someone's sockpuppet. It is not about following the letter of policy regardless of what you think. It about following what you think consistently regardless of who it applies to. Ignore sockpuppets if you like, but ignore all of them and work to make policy match what you believe. And if you don't think the policy is wrong or wrong enough to merit the effort of working to change, then you insist your friend follows the policy. It is really not that hard and if you are truly sending Arbcom private emails while choosing personal inaction, then I am not sure how you are defining a friend. --BirgitteSB 07:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah being a hypocrite definitely doesn't help matters. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not really about being a hypocrite to me; it is much more about making Wikipedia work. If there is a problem with bad bans and the ban appeal process is not fixing them, I guarantee you there is more than one person getting shafted. When a non-admin confides in you about their problem with Wikipedia; it is an opportunity to understand the process from another angle. If the process isn’t working for your friend; then it isn’t working for others. Wanting to help solve your friend’s problem is a good thing. But solve the problem with the process; rather than subvert the process for your friend. I am not pushing integrity because I get a kick out being judgmental towards people, or because I hate hypocrites. I am pushing it because without it Wikipedia is not going to work. And people don't seem to realize this. --BirgitteSB 19:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

there has been at least a comment from a respected Wikipedian that in case of conflict between helping a friend, and helping the encyclopedia, xe would help the friend. (I'm deliberately not pointing to it, because while only one person was bold enough to say it, many seem to feel it. ) Helping one's friends is to some extent inevitable for actual humans, but it is necessary to have some clear limits. The experience of human politics shows that the most effective way to control it is to make some actions where such help would seriously interfere with the encyclopedia impossible: the first step would be to require positive identification of all administrators, both new and existing. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Things are never so clear-cut as that comment. Help your friends without compromising your integrity and Wikipedia will work itself out. It isn't even a choice. If you choose to help you friend in a way that compromises your integrity; you haven't helped them at all. Whatever ability you might have to protect a friend is tied to your integrity. Compromising the integrity compromises the protection. To be sure there is a time lag, but it is not worth it.--BirgitteSB 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My hope is that, ultimately, if it came down to protecting a friend who had rightfully been blocked (and helping them evade the block) or adhering to policy and honesty, if someone felt they would choose the friend over the project that they would resign their tools and state that it was for "personal reasons". To me, that's the honorable thing to do, but maybe I'm an idealist. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resigning is one option, publicly stating that you are refusing to participate in enforcement for all sockpuppets of banned users who are not currently editing in a disruptive manner until Arbcom reviews their archives and responds to all requests for appeal is another. I cannot agree that we must always enforce policy, we just need to be consistent in how we enforce policy. Before I was an admin I worked to overturn the policy against non-latin users names. I identified many accounts in violation of that policy in my research stage. I did not report these accounts to the Username noticeboard, and if I had been an admin I would not have blocked them. One of my first steps during that campaign was to ask the admins who were most prolific in blocking such accounts to reconsider and stopping making those blocks. Refraining from enforcing policy is a valid step in the process to change policy.--BirgitteSB 17:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a volunteer organization I think it is entirely appropriate for admins to avoid enforcing rules they don't agree with, so long as they do so consistently. But actively circumventing those rules in some cases while enforcing them in others is unacceptable.   Will Beback  talk  19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There are a few areas where I strongly disagree with the policies. I deal with that by working elsewhere, but if something unavoidably comes my way I either deal with it according to policy if its really clear, or else refer to another admin. The distinction is between helping one's friends avoid violating policy, and helping them evade it, or disguising their violations after the fact. But, in fairness, Lara has commented on my talk p. that she thinks the comments to which this refers have been over-interpreted, and I refer to her messages there [53]. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD results in merger

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/"Ode_to_Deodorant"/"Brothers_+_Sisters" was closed 12 days ago, with a consensus to merge. But no one has attempted to merge the page, and I was wondering what can be done. I'd merge the page myself, but I don't feel the sources at Ode_to Deodorant/Brothers + Sisters are reliable enough. I realize this isn't the right venue, but I asked at the help desk, but got completely ignored. Deserted Cities (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You could try asking the editors who suggested merging at the AfD to do it. If that does not work, you could just redirect the article to the merge target – which should either provoke someone who cares enough to merge or prove that there wasn't much worth merging to begin with. Hope this helps,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reponse, I'll redirect it. Deserted Cities (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for an AfD merge to sit a while – sometimes months – before being merged or redirected. As this issue affects non-AfD mergers also, suggestions are welcome at WT:Proposed mergers. Flatscan (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If nobody actually merges an article, it may mean that the discussion at AfD didn't truly reflect community consensus, or that those who proposed a merge have changed their minds.

Anybody can perform a merge, if there is consensus that it needs to be done. The purpose of deletion discussions is not to dictate such actions as merges, redirects and whatnot (with rare exceptions), but to decide whether or not the page is to be deleted. Those discussions are necessary because it is not possible for non-admins to reverse deletion, whereas a merge is easily undone. --TS 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of pages that have consensus for a merge, but which nobody has got around to merging. It's not uncommon for a page to be tagged with a merge template and be forgotten afterwards. That's because it's easy to !vote in an AfD, but actually doing the work takes some time and effort. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog demolished. MuZemike 03:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations has a backlog which needs admins. Help out the poor clerks and close a few cases. :) Brandon (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/James N. Sears

Could an admin with a little spare time please keep an eye on this page? The accompanying article was deleted after a heated AfD. Several users who seem to be affiliated with the subject and have little knowledge of Wikipedia policy have now started personally attacking the other participants and I and insinuating that the article was deleted purely on ethical/legal/moral/political grounds and not Wikipedia policy, which is completely not true (the subject was not notable, there were BLP and spam issues, possible G10, etc.). I pointed them to DRV, figuring that they might calm down if they knew there was a way to dispute the AfD. I would be very thankful if an admin could watch the page for a little while and take necessary action if the users begin getting unruly. Xenon54 / talk / 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Should this page be deleted? MuZemike 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is, my reason being is because it only serves as an attack page. MuZemike 01:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I initially Twinkled it back to the first version, but on second thought I agree--this is close enough to the attack page line that I speedied it. Blueboy96 01:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the speedy speedy, but unfortunately this most likely isn't over yet. The subject of the article has been using Twitter to recruit meatpuppets - not that there's anything anyone here can do about that. Xenon54 / talk / 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In which case, should the title be salted to prevent future recreation? Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(I assume you're talking about the article) Yes, that would be a good idea. Could you please salt Dimitri the Lover (his nickname, which redirected to the article) as well? Xenon54 / talk / 11:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both titles salted. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog, WP:RM

We have a rather large backlog currently at requested moves (larger than I can ever remember). I know it's a specialty area but help out if you can (closing instructions are here).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the instructions were helpful. I cleared out a dozen or so; if tomorrow the backlog is still severe and User talk:Skomorokh is not overrun by headhunters I'll check back in.  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleared out another 10 or so. Around 20 remaining, for anyone interested or bored. Abecedare (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great job. Between the three of us it's far more manageable now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Appears to be getting quite busy. An Admin or two might want to pay a visit there. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Protactinium-231

Resolved

 – User blocked.

I came across this user at WP:AIV earlier today. Unfortunately no warning had been issued. I left a uw-upload4im at 12:17. At 12:43 Proactinium uploaded this file. Although no warning has yet been posted to the user's talk page, per the Duck test this is apparently an inappropriate image. As I'm sort of "involved" now, would another admin look over the contribution of the image and issue a block if deemed appropriate? Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First, this belong as incidents, not here. Second, I've blocked him. Adding image after image without a source, ignoring all the warnings, isn't productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies for posting at wrong venue. Mjroots (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My idea of transition of Interwiki Policies or Guidelines

Resolved

 – nothing to do here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was making an essay about my idea of transitioning policies and guidelines from other sites such as Wikia and I was wondering if you thought the idea was good. S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here; if you want input, try the WP:Village pump. This noticeboard is just for administrator issues, which is not really relevant to general policy or essay stuff. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OpenID

Resolved

 – Normal content dispute; nothing for Wikipedia administrators to do — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

We are attempting to edit the Openid Wiki with cited and verifiable information that someone repeatably is deleting. The information we wish to add is within the History as follows:

Dennis Lyon an inventor from Oceanside, CA was the first to describe the processes that are involved in “OpenID” within United States Patent Application 20060212407. In 2004 Dennis Lyon was convicted of identity theft and subsequently developed the system which is called “OpenID” however calls the process himself authentication protocol or “Authenticol”. Dennis Lyon is currently CTO of Authenticol Systems and CEO for Global Stage Systems.

Can you please help us resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstage (talk • contribs) 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This board is for requesting the assistance of Wikipedia administrators in their capacity as administrators. The dispute you're involved in is just a typical content dispute, which Wikipedia administrators would not get involved in except to prevent disruption. It looks to me like you're the one being disruptive, by repeatedly trying to add material that several other editors have objected to, so it's probably best for you not to draw attention to the issue. Continuing to discuss this on Talk:OpenID is a much better idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is the edit warring by this user, if it continues it may very well be an admin issue. Chillum 20:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, know. I'm just trying to be nice here. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noloop

In light of the absence of Noloop (talk · contribs) and the indefinite block of WebHamster (talk · contribs), the two primary parties, this case is dismissed. If future problems arise (following the return or unblock of either or both editors), those problems should be dealt with by the opening of a new user conduct request for comment on the editor concerned. Requests for the Arbitration Committee to reopen this case would also be considered.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/new users

'nuff said, let's get this party started right. Figure out what we can do here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjanag and systematic change of the common spelling of Turfan in all Wikipedia pages

Keep discussion together. Moved to ANI. ÷seresin 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

backlog at AIV

There's a relatively huge backlog at WP:AIV with the oldest report having sat there for over 3 1/2 hours. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spam

Lots of folks are talking ... hope we can all work together. Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator — Ched :  ?  04:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kids programs in C:SD ?

Anyone know hy many kid channels/programs like PBS Kids, Fox Kids etc are appearing in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion ? May have something to do with {{KidsTVBlocksUS}}, which was recently moved around, but I couldn't figure out what exactly. Abecedare (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of @DK???

I popped onto C:CSD to see if there where any quick hits I could clear during my morning break. The first on the list @DK is a puzzler... I can't see anything in the history to indicate that it has been nominated, and purging the CSD cache doesn't remove it from the list. Does anyone know why this article is appearing on the CSD list? As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any criteria for CSD. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it was something to do with that template. I moved the last known good version back, and then re-instated the intervening edit, and everything appears OK now ... but I can't see any difference between the two versions, so I'll have to pass on how that fixed it! Black Kite 09:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well PBS Kids Preschool Block had it by way of a db-move transcluded somewhere. I never figured how it was in there. possibly a redirected template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:WebHamster

There appears to be a substantial edit war at the aforementioned page. I was about to fully protect it for a few days, but being that it is a discussion page (and Hamster may wish to appeal his block), I am not sure if this is the proper course of action. Thoughts are appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this as well. Since PoD engaged Daed on his (Daed's) talk page, I left a 3RR reminder there. While I don't agree with Webhamster's approach to "collaboration", I do think the option to request unblock, and possibly to state they will "tone it down" should be left open to him if possible. Good catch JC. — Ched :  ?  16:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much harm in protecting it. He's not using it for any useful purpose, and we already know he's churlish. I don't see that more useful information is likely to come from that page. Friday (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be protected, but on the same token Daedalus969 should be given a 3RR warning for going over the line on 3RR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect it for 24 hours, warn then block anyone who returns to edit war. That is quite enough of this.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Tznkai (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the page should be protected, but no warning to Daedulus69. He's enforcing policy, re WP:CIV. (I've reverted this page as well )

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 14:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Protect the page, give him the e-mail for the unblock list. Daedulus was correct to not allow hamster to use the page as a soapbox to give the finger to those he disagrees with. Chillum 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree on that- it's better to leave his tantrums in place. It's useful information for anyone considering an unblock. We absolutely want people to recognize what kind of editor we're dealing with here. Friday (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Friday, but for a quite different reason. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is a no-no and "enforcing civility policy" is not an accepted exception.--Tznkai (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. –xeno^talk 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wonderful. So now only Chillum can have his evil way with the page, and WebHamster is unable to request that he be unblocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I don't go around calling you evil, just disruptive. Chillum 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • No, the page is fully protected and I would be quite surprised if anyone were to edit it to their preferred state. I've also left information on how WebHamster can request unblocking. If, however, he is prepared to put up an unblock request and would prefer to do it in the usual way, I can unprotect - but that remains to be seen. –xeno^talk 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok this is unbelievable. DO NOT FAN THE FLAMES. The next editor that removes WH's edits to his talk page will get blocked, admin or not. Jesus people, he's indeffed. Just leave him alone until he posts an unblock request. If the notion of a 'civility free zone' offends you so much, permission granted to not navigate over to his talk page. Protonk (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, while a good post, a little late. No changes have been made to WebHamster's talk page since Xeno completely locked it down (only admins can access it) at 10:37 UTC on October 1. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that after posting. Protonk (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Down Muzzle!--Tznkai (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, there's no such thing as a civility free zone, no matter what Webhamster says on his page. Yes, we have a lot of latitute on our pages that don't exists anywhere else, but that's not part of it. The image of the middle finger and the incivil header violates WP:CIV and it needs to go, that's he block isn't relevant. I'd hope you wouldn't block anyone that chose to uphold WP:CIV by removing those items. Just grab a cup of tea and think about it (don't worry - I haven't touched his page since your warning )

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, your overly-long not-your-actual-username sig is more of an annoyance than a middle finger on someone's talk page. The page warning isn't a declaration of outright incivility, it simply gives a "garbage in, garbage out" warning. While just an essay, WP:BEAR contains a good bit of common sense. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Want to create redirect

the page i'm trying to create redirect on, previously was deleted ,so now i need to create it once again.... i want to redirect people who search "xvand" to "Xvand Technology Corporation"///--> like this

1. REDIRECT [[54]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roman Doroshenko (talk • contribs) 07:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to speedy delete File:Gym.jpg but it is blacklisted

I want to tag File:Gym.jpg with

{{db-redundantfile|Titanic_gym.jpg}}

, but I can't since it is blacklisted. It is a duplicate of File:Titanic_gym.jpg

Thanks, WhiteDragon (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The two images are not really duplicates. Also File:Gym.jpg is on wikipedia commons. Instead of deleting either files, I would suggest transferring File:Titanic_gym.jpg to commons too. Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That doesn't change the fact that it is substantially the same pic. I agree that they could both be on commons, but as the only article that links to Gym.jpg is doing so incorrectly (the gymnasium from the RMS Titanic is certainly not the gymnasium of York College of Pennsylvania), and the fact that the picture should have a more meaningful name, I can only conclude that Gym.jpg may as well be deleted. WhiteDragon (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the York College of Pennsylvania‎ where it was misplaced. Even though no English wikipedia page is currently using the gym image, several other wikiprojects are, for example, [55], [56], [57], [58] etc. Not to belabor the point, but being unused on English language wikipedia or having an imperfect name, are not reasons to deleted an image, especially from wikipedia commons. See the commons deletion policy for further details. Abecedare (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's PD, it can only be helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any projects that actually use the images off the en.wikipedia directly (apart from en.wikipedia that is)? I am not talking about commons here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

British_Lingua

What's the best thing to do with this article at this point? It seems overly promotional, but there seems to be some substantial content. Netalarmtalk 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Find some third-party reliable sources. --217.44.187.212 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files close request

Could an uninvolved admin please close out Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 September 15#File:HollenbeckBH.jpg. It is the first in a series of related image nominations so the outcome of this one will help close several related nominations. -Optigan13 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Everybody in Love

Resolved

 – Move completed

As requested when my nomination for the article Everybody in Love to be unlocked was declined, a subpage with reliable sources has been created here. Therefore I believe the article now passes WP:NSONGS so could the article now be moved to Everybody in Love. RM-Taylor (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Khachkar (Talk)

Please, solve problem of interwiki to the Azerbaijani wikipedia in this article. Just look at Talk page of the article. Wertuose (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, waiting for response. Wertuose (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the talk page is a mess of arguments, I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing and if there's consensus for it. Try a new section, use template:editprotected if things are clear, and it turns out the same edit warriors poisoning the well of any discussion, tell me and I'll try to organize something sensible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for large userspace deletion

Hi! Last week, I had this account renamed to "Islanders27." I eventually switched back to iMatthew a few days after. This morning, I noticed that someone had re-registered the Islanders27 account who is not me. Would an administrator mind going through the Islanders27 subpages talk:Islanders27 and talk subpages and deleting all of them. They're all redirects to my userspace. I'm not completely comfortable with someone else using the account name I used for a few days, but as long as he contributes constructively, I don't think it's a problem. (although not many people know what it means to usurp, how to set up userboxes, how to wikilink, or change their signature in their first two edits....) iMatthew ^talk at 10:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing.... Bencherlite^Talk 10:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. For good measure, I also moved back to your old-new name some pages that had got stuck at your old name (your talk-page edit notice, your to-do list, etc). Bencherlite^Talk 10:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway, with the election itself starting on 30 October. If you think you may be suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Old Prod

Resolved

Would it be possible for an administrator to copy the material from Bob Guzzardi that was deleted from a prod into my userspace? I would like to try and resurrect that article in a way that passes WP:N. Thanks to all--Blargh29 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Blargh29/Bob Guzzardi. ↪REDVERS ^{I dreamt about stew last night} 12:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Blargh29 (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Licensing reminder

Hi. Just a general reminder pursuant to a WT:Copyclean thread that text imported under GFDL licensing after Nov. 1, 2008 is a copyright violation unless it is also licensed compatibly with CC-By-SA. The only exception is if it was imported from another Wikimedia Project; so text that was translated from say, the German Wikipedia is still good. See Wikipedia:Licensing update#Content restrictions and wmf:Terms of Use. Understandably, this still causes some confusion, given that it's such a big change. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We should add a note when people edit so that they are aware of this issue in the section where we normally note that content is being released under the GFDL and the relevant CC license.JoshuaZ (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV Backlog

Resolved

- backlog has been cleared Stephen! ^Coming... 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a backlog at WP:AIV.--Zink Dawg -- 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Conduct

In light of many recent events, I've been left asking a lot of questions that's led me to some research and reading. I noticed that since ArbCom has been handed a "mess in a handbasket", they are revisiting their own conduct. A little digging turned up this old gem of a poll, and it's left me thinking. Perhaps we as administrators need to be clear on what we expect from each other, but more to the point - perhaps we need to be clear on what the community expects from admins.. I'm wondering if perhaps it's not time to dust off Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, have a closer look at it, put it up to WP:CENT and see where we stand today, 3 years after the original thoughts. Input anyone? — Ched :  ?  15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note, I didn't run across this on the "Admins reading list", or anywhere in the "New admin. school" — Ched :  ?  16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Admin accountability, who are these people commenting? I recognise barely a dozen or so names, and it says something that so many are no longer with us and yet were so eager to comment on the discussion. I would suggest, also, that any such updated poll need be run over several pages and timescales - I only read half the page and that is several minutes of my life I will never get back. Per Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, it seems to be a really sensible distillation of the responsibilities of admins and I can only suppose it was not adopted because it was before its time. I think that given a few tweaks it could easily be adopted now. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Personally I don't mind sticking to a code of conduct - but I have to know what the rules are before I want to play. ;) — Ched :  ?  19:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• We're playing calvinball, Ched. Keegan (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Administrators, like all editors, should act to improve Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." <-- code of conduct. kmccoy (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are expected to solve problems instead of making them worse, to recognize their mistakes, to listen to criticism, to communicate when asked, to speak diplomatically when possible, to recognize legitimate disagreement, to exercise restraint and caution and to exercise otherwise their best judgment at all times. Though no administrator will ever be perfect, they are asked to do their best.--Tznkai (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great, Tznkai. It covers everything without being WP:CREEPy. hmwith☮ 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in it with any teeth, it's just words and no substance. It leaves admins able to wikilawyer their way out of any misdeeds. DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any suggestions, DuncanHill? Tan | 39 16:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, he just complains. I would personally suggest WP:RFDA as a framework for stating what administrators may not do, along the general WP (and Western law) convention that whatever is not forbidden is permitted. Or as a framework for providing examples (perhaps hypothetical?) of what would be considered abuse of the tools. The most difficult part will be getting certain admins to comprehend that they are required to uphold ethical standards with regards to things like disclosure and oh, not lying to the entire community. I agree that while Tznkai's statement is a lovely ideal, it has absolutely no effectiveness; language like 'expected to' means any admin can say 'oops' at any time and that'll be the end of it. We need a desysopping process with teeth that is mandatory for all admins, and we need an admin code of conduct policy that lays out a bright line of what is not acceptable behaviour, a grey area of behaviour that may or may not be unacceptable depending on the circumstances, and obviously things along the lines of "Blocking you without warning for posting 'OMG TITTIES' a thousand times on Pamela Anderson is not, in fact, admin abuse," to protect the (increasingly rare, sadly) decent admins from frivolous complaints.

The community, naturally, will never agree on how to do this. Which means that admin abuses will continue to increase, the divide between admins and regular editors (which, frankly, should not be a distinction!) will become a gulf of impassable proportions, and the inevitable death-spiral of Wikipedia will increase in speed and severity. What is needed is a decree--and as much as I despise letting Jimbo retain his power, this is one of the cases in which he could actually do good for the project, and perhaps make it his swan song before stepping down as dictator--from Jimbo laying out an admin code of conduct and tasking stewards and/or crats with ensuring that an RFDA process functions under the auspices of that code without frivolous requests. → ROUX ₪ 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't "only complain" (I recently tried to get "appropriate standards of honesty" addede to WP:ADMIN and am participating in the debate there), but as whenever I do try to suggest any positive change or to support such proposals from others it gets shot down by the usual suspects, I am perhaps less prolific in making suggestions than I would be if I felt that there was a possibility of any admins taking them seriously. Great way to go Roux, agree with me but start by having a go at me. Could you maybe tell me on my talk page why you have such a beef against me instead of dropping it into random threads? DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wow. That's a real blast from the past. I'm almost an old-timer now. Hiding T 12:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry guy. You're still a newbie compared to some of us. -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

To respond to the earlier complaint of "no teeth", yes, thats true, the complaint doesn't by itself have teeth. I don't believe in giving policies teeth, I prefer giving people or bodies teeth. What I outlined above was a standard, which is every bit as important, if not more so. Standards give you a frame to understand disputes in, and encourages a culture for admins to hold themselves up to a standard. The frame is very important, because it gives Arbitration or any other process a measuring stick.--Tznkai (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, that poll has comments by Badlydrawnjeff. I miss him around the place, his updates on Facebook make me smile too. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Panasonicc WP:SUICIDE

Resolved

Panasonicc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Under WP:SUICIDE I'm reporting the following diff.[59] Although the following does not specifically mention suicide, the connotation certainly suggests it. A second explanation is vandalism, although the page's namespace (WP:PROCESS) makes it seem less likely to appear as vandalism than if it were at WP:RD or similar. This is how I'm interpreting things so far, and of course there is inherent uncertainty. I have reverted the provided diff, recommend moving to step 3 and 4 of WP:SUICIDE. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The person would likely benefit from professional attention and the post is clearly a "Cry for help," specifically "I cut myself for attention." My heart goes out to her and her family. Contacting local authorities is appropriate.A checkuser is called for, and the resulting IP can be provided to the local law enforcement. Self harm is not necessarily a suicide attempt. I do not see numbered steps at WP:SUICIDE. Where did you start counting? Edison (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but there is inherent uncertainty, I read it as a first step in suicide: crying for attention. I counted the section numbers as steps. 2.4 is to do a check user, contact local authorities, so on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted a kind response on her talk page and an invitation to talk to me if she wishes. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not seek to be a crisis counselor. A person in crisis should be referred to a doctor or a crisis hotline or law enforcement. Edison (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IP POV and falsification

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia merge discussion

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ?

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Again Backlogged

Resolved

AIV is again backlogged. If an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/213

This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI). Please look for it on that page. Thank you.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 9 has over 30 identical deletion requests for redirects to {{Citation needed}}. I don't think this is likely to result in a proper discussion of the issue and would appreciate some thoughts on how it might be better handled, perhaps through some sort of RfC process. Guy (Help!) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on merging some of the related ones together; I hope to cleanup my mess. Apologies. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's something similar going on at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_October_9, multiple identical nominations by Debresser. Those don't seem likely to garner the proper discussion either. Equazcion (talk) 22:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:JohnMSJ

This user is engaged in outright vandalism on topics relating to the former Yugoslavia (see [60]). He has been caught twice and reverted, and warned (see [[61]]). Why not simply ban him? [email protected] (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

disclosure: bulk Afd newb bite undone.

Just a quick heads up to disclose my latest invocation of IAR:

Nezzadar stumbled across a series of shipwreck stubs recently written by a newb, and nominated them all, individually and simultaneously for deletion. I shudder to think how a newb must feel to log in, find their talk page filled with official-looking templates, and discover that everything they've contributed is threatened with deletion. And I can't imagine how they are supposed to spread themselves across so many discussionss. This seems to me a horrible case of newby biting, so I have deleted eight of the nine AfDs. The one remaining should suffice to test whether the broader community shares Nezzadar's concerns.

Links: User talk:Whodidwhat, User talk:Nezzadar#Two things.

Hesperian 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Ideally we would want to have obtained Nezzadar's concurrence before the deletion of the AFDs, but since the user is not around I think this was a good application of IAR to avoid driving away a new contributor. Abecedare (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was one article left nominated (fair enough I suppose) - Adele (1906). A little searching has turned it into a decent enough article which I've now nominated at DYK as it still within 5 days of creation. Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI confusion

I've just tried to file an SPI, it is currently here. I used the automated system, which put it at /User:IP, it has been moved to /IP but has a notice (apparently placed there automatically when I filed it) saying it's been moved in the other direction. Someone has also removed the actual request from the page (I've undone that because it makes no sense). I am now thoroughly confused - can somebody please a) make sure the request is appropriately filed and b) tell me what's going on? Thanks! --Tango (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for a): It is appropriately filed. NW (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for b): I replied on my talk page somewhat. If you are still confused, I will be happy to explain further there. NW (Talk) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tango (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure at WQA

Wrong noticeboard. This is an incident. Indeed, it's a continuation of an incident that is still open at the incidents noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker, where you will now find this. Please read the edit notice before editing this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at 3RR

There is loads of work waiting for eager amins at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama page Templates Problems

I know that this might not be the place for this, but can someone please figure out why the templates on his page are not working. It seems that there are too many there. At issue is the fact that the Featured Article template was hidden for quite some time, and this can mix up perceptions of the page. Any ideas? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple didn't exsist (hence they were red) but all others are working and showing up properly as of this writing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

They do exist. They are linked correctly in the editing stage, but when you click them, it doesn't work. I moved the FA template, as it was on the bottom, and it miracously worked. I think that we should figure this out soon, as it's rather silly for a FA to have dead template links. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Updated the header for better explanation of the subject of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

After messing around with the templates I noticed this warning at the top of the page: "Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." Some of the templates have got to go or the template include size bumped up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I say we do the latter, since there will be more templates someday. Even after he is out of office, I still see templates being added, assuming he lives to old age, since it is unlikely he is just going to sit around for the rest of his life. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) The page is hitting the Mediawiki pagesize limits. The NewPP limit report in the page source says:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 192669/1000000
Post-expand include size: 2047999/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 991704/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 6/500

and the Post-expand include size is essentially at the upper limit, which would prevent the remaining templates from being transcluded properly. The large size also presents a server load and page accessibility issue, so it would be advisable to reduce the number of navigational templates on the page. Abecedare (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well one box is probably going to go, so that's not going to be an issue. Would splitting the page up a bit more help, since it is such a large article? I did notice that it takes a while to load though, so splitting it wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Lets also consider that Obama's article is only 7 kilobytes smaller than George Bush's article, so this might be saying something. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Abecedare, is there some way to bump up that limit size or is that as high as MediaWiki is willing to let it go? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The limits will have to be raised by Tim Starling or other developers, and though I have no inside knowledge, I would consider it unlikely they'd do so just for one or a few pages. FYI, without any of the navigational templates the page expands to around 1.36 MB, which is well within the mediawiki limit. Even disregarding the mediawiki limits, having a page size so large is arguably making it inaccessible to anyone with a "slow" connection, and that may well be over half of the world's internet population (just a guess).
  • By the way Wikipedia:VPT may be a better forum for questions and discussion. Abecedare (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a technical fix for this is really asking for special dispensation to be made for bad articles. When it comes to navigation templates this article is bad. The same list of cabinet officers is given three times in three separate navigation templates, for example. And that's far from the only duplication. The succession boxes are duplicated, too. Fix the poor quality of the article, and the technical limitations won't be an issue. Uncle G (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know which templates to remove, please feel free. I would mention why you are doing so on the talk page just so no one reverts you, it being a well-watched article and all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous amount of templates there, what happened to old fashioned prose? All opened they expand to a third of the article. Garion96 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the limits should probably be a bit raised, I know this is kind of a slippery slope argument, but there are articles like List of Heroes of the Russian Federation or 2009 in Australian FTA television with end templates not displaying and no easy fix. Cenarium (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way that we can shrink half the references. They literally are half the page. I'm sure we can remove a fair amount of them as well as there are likely many duplicates there. I'm using a school's Wifi, and it's taking two minutes or more to open the page. It seems to be working now since a few templates were removed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian Page Issue

While we're here, I might as well address the Russian page issue. It uses 26 templates, one for each letter of the alphabet. Apparently an editor thought that it would be a good idea to do this, shrinking the page from 226 kilobytes, to around 1600 bytes. The problem is this has led to a reference list about 512 links long, and about 40 links that can't work because of this backup. This page should be expanded again, and this will kill the template size issue. Most of the links on the page are repetitive, so there are probably only 50 at a maximum there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing the {{ru icon}} templates, not especially needed, may be enough though, but it would be tiresome to remove them manually. Cenarium (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be willing to do it, I just can't figure out how to get to the page. I definitely think that we should combine the links though, as there are too many repeats. Unfortunately, this means combining those templates. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)