Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215

Afd needing closure

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time for Annihilation has been open for nearly two months, in which time the article has been much improved. However, there is a current apparent consensus for deletion, largely due to interested editors not going to the Afd and defending it. I commented myself, so I can't close it, but it needs outside eyes to take a realistic point of view and do the right thing. Cheers. Rodhullandemu 00:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that this AFD was never transcluded onto the log for May 20th. I did so and relisted it with a note pointing to this thread. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Ron. Probably explains the lack of comments from editors, but nevertheless, the AfD notice has been repeatedly removed by an editor whom I blocked earlier. That doesn't excuse those actions, of course, since the AFD was valid, but I think another 7 days is probably the correct thing to do. Rodhullandemu 01:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the AFD tag not being on the article at the moment when "interested editors" saw it might have hurt its chances. Those who remove AFD tags don't realize that by doing so they're keeping the "keep" !voters away as well. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hence the block, for precisely that reason. Rodhullandemu 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose Topic Ban

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

---

Resolved

 – User topic-banned for 6 months

For User: Wittsun, on all articles and edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion. Per [1] and [2].

Supports and opposes can go below. Also feel free to comment on either of the two original threads, if you wish. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - having seen the article Six Families of Berlin, which Wittsun deprodded, it is clear that Wittsun holds extremist views on this subject matter. The page was an anti-Lebanese racist hoax/synthesis, and it is clear that Wittsun's views show that he cannot edit impartially on the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs) 22.39, today

How so? Being only one of two German speakers on that thread, I was able to evaluate the referenced sources for notability. As for stonemason89's partisan fixation to get me banned, I encourage others to evaluate his 'contributions' such as the supposed widespread misuse of the metaphor 'black hole'[3] and his close following of the 'redneck shop'[4]]--Wittsun (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles have been accepted by the Did You Know editorial team as legitimate, and were even featured on the main page, so you're going to have a very hard time getting people to agree with your statement. Also, simply creating an article about a particular topic, as long as the topic is notable and appropriate for an encyclopedia (unlike, for example, the aforementioned Six Families of Berlin), is not in an of itself a reason to suspect bias. If everyone on Wikipedia was afraid to write or contribute to articles about certain topics because they thought other people would judge them for it, then Wikipedia's growth and comprehensiveness would be greatly harmed. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are borderline conspiracy theory and seem to have temporarily escaped the attention WP:ZEAL editors such as the ones piping up here for a topic ban. Unfortunately better material has been deleted or so mangled as to be hardly understandable.--Wittsun (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory"? Hardly. Your comments about "racism" being a code word of the Frankfurt School, however, are conspiracy theories. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support temporary topic ban -- 6 months, say? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as Stonemason89 is an activist who himself is biased when it comes to racial issues.--Wittsun (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Since when is being anti-racist being biased? In my opinion, you're lucky this isn't a full ban. Support per Stonemason's reasons. (By the way, I really think this dispute belongs as ANI instead of the main noticeboard.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Being 'anti'-anything for ideological reasons is an admission of bias. By the looks of things admins have shown more tolerance towards your presence here than you show others.--Wittsun (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • First of all, I think it's more than a little ironic that someone who defends Podblanc would accuse other people of not showing "tolerance". Second of all, Wikipedia has a very definite policy regarding WP: FRINGE views, as opposed to mainstream ones; white nationalism is definitely the former, while being opposed to racism is generally regarded as the latter. You may think that's unfair, but it's how Wikipedia operates. WP: NPOV means that we try to avoid adding our own bias to articles, but it does not mean that we have to give FRINGE viewpoints the same amount of weight as mainstream ones. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • For someone who relies on a vast amount of FRINGE terminology to make himself remotely understood, I'd say this is a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'[5] -- another metaphor that apparently has been overlooked by your eagle eye for 'anti-racist' reinterpretation.--Wittsun (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
          • I don't use "fringe" terminology. I don't know what you're talking about. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban related to race and ethnicity only. There doesn't seem to be an issue in regards to religion. -Oescp (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a heavy-handed editor yourself[6] with a history of over-involvement in ethnic disputes this vote is hardly surprising.--Wittsun (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at Oescp's comment on Spylab's talk page, it appears as though he conducted himself civilly. He didn't attack Spylab, he merely asked Spylab about some of the latter's edits, which Oescp didn't understand the rationale for. Nothing wrong with that. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, Wittsun is right. How rude of me to ask someone to elaborate on a particular edit. That's completely unacceptable, but in the future I promise not to engage in such heavy handed editing. -Oescp (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great New Year's resolution. Another one of your 'helpful' NPOV edits, here:[7]--Wittsun (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Again, Oescp did nothing wrong; racially motivated crimes and reverse discrimination are two different topics. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While I support a topic ban as a minimum, why aren't we talking about an indef block? An editor with a history of making unacceptable edits to push their political views has no place in Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support temporary topic ban (six months as per Sarek is ok). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Who was it that said "Many laws make bad men, as bad men make many laws"? -- Answer: Walter Savage Landor--Wittsun (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I didn't know that apothegm; personally, however, I'm more for quid leges sine moribus vanae proficiunt?, as Horace put it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer Tacitus myself: corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.--Wittsun (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems excessive, only one block for 24 hours, nothing here warrants such a punishment. Requests for a full ban are laughable. Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to get some more feedback on this thread; while I think we've come pretty close to reaching a consensus (the consensus appears to be that Wittsun should be topic-banned, but maybe only for 6 months), I still think getting one or two more participants in this discussion would be a good idea. I'm not an admin myself, so I don't have the authority to close this thread or to issue bans; I'll have to leave that up to someone who actually does have admin status. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - After looking through the users edits, it seems that Wittsun cannot edit in the topic-related articles with a NPOV attitude, and is distinctly biased in their editing in the topic. As such, I think that a topic ban would be a good idea. Skinny87 (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - after a long attempt at dialogue with this editor at Talk:Hate crimes against white people and Talk:Reverse discrimination, it's becoming clear that he's either trolling or unable to maintain a WP:NPOV on this topic. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  The guidelines are: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. As for 'anti-racists' trying to edit phenomenon that effects white people specifically there is clear WP:COI --Wittsun (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this editor really arguing that only racists should be allowed to edit particular articles? RolandR (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears so, which is what has prompted me to close this discussion as fairly obviously supported by the community. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (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.

Stats are down?

See [8] for an example. We seem to be missing a lot of data from the last few days ([9]). Does anyone know what's happening? -- ChrisO (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a recurring issue with stats.grok.se - there were several threads last month about this on WP:VPT. —DoRD (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not stats.grok.se that's down - it gets its source data from http://dammit.lt/wikistats/ . If you look at that URL you'll see that the logs for the last few days are all broken. I'm guessing it's a server-side problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OMFG! the stats are down, quick someone give the nerds a tranqulizer before they go into traumatic shock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.101.182 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Haha, someone signed out just to post that. --mboverload@ 21:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is sad, because there's plenty of people who I would expect that kind of comment from. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a long line... Actually, the reason I noticed was because an article of mine was main paged the other day. Unfortunately with the stats being continuously dead for the last week there's no way of telling how much of a response it got. :-( -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Revdel - review requested

Per a request on my talkpage I've WP:REVDELed four edit summaries, and would like my actions reviewed (Did I go too far? Not far enough?)

Background: Time_served (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), blocked by Elockid for being an obvious sock. The sock's usual target asked me to look at a number of their edits, which I did, and I chose to undo them. Revert me at your leisure, that's not what I'm seeking review for!

I also decided to RD2 four of their edit summaries, as I considered them to be purely disruptive. I'd appreciate review of these RD2s. Am I being too trigger-happy with rev-del?

TFOWR 10:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

These summaries fall under RD2 or RD3; you did the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lightbot is being considered for re-approval

ArbCom is considering lifting the restriction imposed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Lightmouse automation, subject to BAG approval of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 4. As part of BAG's mandate is to gauge community consensus for proposed bot tasks and Lightbot's former activities were highly controversial, I invite all interested editors to join that discussion to ensure that community consensus is in fact in favor of this task. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange article renaming

Resolved

A while ago I started Guntram the Rich, but suddenly, the article name changed to Guntram, Count of Habsburg, and the old article doesn't exist anymore. The logs however contain nothing, and I can find no explanation for this event. The new name is completely wrong, and it should be moved back. I don't understand at all. Tropical wind (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? There is no entry in the move log, indeed no entries in the log at all for Guntram the Rich, nor do you have any deleted edits. If you want to move it to that name, use the move button. –xeno^talk 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm 100% sure I started Guntram the Rich (by clicking the red link at House of Habsburg), I edited it for a while under this name, but it suddenly got renamed. This is very strange and a bit scary too. Tropical wind (talk) 18:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll note that redlink was piped to Guntram, Count of Habsburg, which is why it is no longer red even though Guntram the Rich was not created. –xeno^talk 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Perhaps I just got it wrong. Tropical wind (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

...In Wikipedia, pipe tricks you! –xeno^talk 18:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Directed at Xeno's terrible joke, in case there's any confusion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

E. Normus Johnson history restore

Can an admin please restore the history for E. Normus Johnson.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How long will the history remain available?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. I'll willing to userify it so you can work on it. Otherwise, I was going to ask you about it anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a couple sources that will enable it to stand as an article now, but i might not get around to it for a month or so. If you just leave the history up for about 2 months I will create a page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am just reading my talk now. Userfying is O.K. too.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB requests

Resolved

 – Cleared by the expert, as usual Rodhullandemu 00:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please check the requests here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? I know it hasn't been 48 hours but my name is on the list and I lose access for the rest of the week to a Windows machine (which AWB works on) in just a few hours. I'm anxious to get started using it. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 23:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Semi-done Approved you so you can get rolling; there's someone from fr.wiki with 17 edits that I don't know how to handle, so I'm going to punt if someone more familiar wants to take a look. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!! Dismas|^(talk) 00:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Done Editor from fr:wiki has been offered appropriate advice. Rodhullandemu 00:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cruft cleanup request

I'm too busy to deal with this myself, assuming that it in fact requires debate, but I was looking through my past edits and by chance viewed this AfD and then viewed the edits of Thaliafan to find that he has created a mass of articles related to what appears to be his own incredibly non-noteworthy (and virtually non-existent) musical creations, which have lasted well over a year. Could someone deal with this garbage? Lexicon (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OKC Thunder Article.

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

Resolved

 – Issue resolved, no admin action required. Doc9871 (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed a part of an article and was warned it was "Vandalism" it was reverted and I asked for a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_Thunder&action=historysubmit&diff=373371549&oldid=373334471

Then was warned again that it was "vandalism" even though the edit in question is factual. Afterwards I asked the person reporting it why it was reverted and was warned of a ban for "attacking him". This person is supposed to be an admin, if this is how admins act (basically trying to ban people for no reason) I'm curious about the qualifications of becoming an admin and the lack of even giving an answer of what the vandalism was in the first place. If asking a question or stating a point is "attacking" then this whole thing is just wrong. Some people have no right to such power if they don't know how to wield it or just use it to push their point of view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.160.51.149

I'd like an answer as to why a fact is vandalism, why asking for an answer is "an attack", and how can someone can threaten a ban for basically no reason whatsoever.

Thanks67.160.51.149 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - A) This is clearly not a good revert of "vandalism", and Rollback should never be used to revert edits like these. 2) "Lame-duck" needs a reference to be included there: one editor's (or many, for that matter) opinion does not make it necessarily fit for inclusion. And, Z) Wrong venue. This should be filed at WP:AN/I instead of here. Chuckles... Doc9871 (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know all the rules of where things go. What about the "personal attack" and the ban threats? Didn't attack anyone, asked a question of why it was reverted and was threatened with a ban.67.160.51.149 (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing (please, admins, correct me if I'm wrong), Dcheagle used Rollback to revert a non-vandalistic query from 67.160.51.149 here, then issued a warning on the IP's talk page 1 minute later here. Despite repeated queries from the IP, the warning was neither explained nor acknowledged. This use of Rollback (second in this case) is against policy, and there seems to have been no attack at all, so no templated warning was warranted. It's in the wrong venue - but it's here already. Eyes? Doc9871 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like bad communication on both sides.
  67.etc., edits that can be construed as negative towards the article subject, and particularly those that are added by IPs, are generally reverted if they lack direct references. Please read the verifiability policy, and consider creating an account. Also, your comment to Dcheagle here was uncivil, we expect people to treat others respectfully here even if the other guy isn't doing the same to you or he just screwed something up.
  Dcheagle, please do not use inaccurate automated edit summaries, please do not use your rollback tool for stuff that isn't simple vandalism, please assume good faith of the IPs, and please do not blank comments from your talk page without addressing them. --erachima talk 08:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this! Reverted and used references (the owners own comment about "another lame duck season").67.160.51.149 (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment:I would like to say sorry to the IP who has made these edits I admit I was wrong, its been a hard week with a death in my family and it seems I have let my emotion get the better of me and its effected my behavior as such I will be taking a three day wiki break and will return after that to hopeful contribute once more. One last thing before I go if any admin sees fit to block me or remove my rollback and reviewer rights I will not contest the block or removal of my user rights. Once again have a nice day.--Steam Iron 08:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That shouldn't be necessary, just try and learn to do better. --erachima talk 08:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No rights should be removed from Dcheagle in my opinion - he only needs to understand when not to rollback. Rollback should only be used for blatant vandalism (not simple): this was what the very wise admin that granted the tool told me; and now Dcheagle (and erachima - excellent comments, BTW!) know this. 67.160.51.149 referenced the article and is happy; I move this be marked and closed as resolved on this board forthwith. Everybody's happy! Yay! :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:02, 14 July 2010 (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.

Minor edits preference

The "mark all edits as minor by default" preference is to be removed. Once this is implemented, is there any reason that editors blocked over this issue cannot be unblocked? Mjroots (talk) 09:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that depends on the circumstances: there has always been a way of deactivating it in preferences, and those who were blocked for marking all edits as minor chose to do so after numerous warnings. If they can show that they now understand why they were blocked and that only "minor" edits should be marked as such, then I'd say unblock. But removing the ability to automatically mark all edits as minor isn't going to change the fact that some editors have ignored warnings to turn the setting off or manually unmark it from non-minor edits, and may continue to mark edits as minor inappropriately with or without the automatic feature. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why they should be unblocked. They weren't blocked for the minor-edits issue per se – they were blocked for being intentionally disruptive and refusing to stop after multiple requests. And they're still the same people. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has this one right. An editor who is so belligerent that they would rather be blocked than uncheck a box has no future here. --erachima talk 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, removing the autominor feature is irrelevant; if they would have been unblocked anyway (if they demonstrated they would abide by policy and stop marking edits as minor) they unblock them; otherwise don't. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected image on the Main Page Part VII

Not to be confused with Cod throwing.

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

for letting File:Ray Charles (cropped).jpg reach the main page unprotected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it was for less than 1 minute. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

thats because I have an IRC bot that started screaming bloody murder and I was quickly able to find J Milburn and get it protected. Had I not taken action it could have been there for a lot longer. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 01:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean MPUploadbot uploaded it locally and protected it less than a minute after it was added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I've protected main page images after being alerted by Beta's bot a Hell of a lot of times- plenty of times when Beta hasn't been here to trout about it. Just look at that log, then tell me there isn't a problem. J Milburn (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying there isn't an occasional problem that needs fixing; I'm saying that there wasn't one this particular time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that unprotected Main Page images=bad, but trouting AN every time is perhaps not the best way of fixing it. Maybe we should cascade protect the TFA templates, that would solve most of the problems. ITN is cascade protected, DYK images are protected by cascade protection while they're in the queue and on Main Page/Tomorrow, TFP and OTD should be protected via /Tommorow, so that jsut leaves TFA images added after midnight UTC as far as I know. Cascade protecting the TFA blurbs for their stay on the MP would solve that problem. Whisky drinker | HJ's sock 01:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

...Unless I've missed something, cascade protection does not work cross-project. You'll note the protections log I linked was my Commons protection log. J Milburn (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been a problem in the past, but MPUploadbot seems to have really improved lately; are there recent problems (say, in the last 1-2 weeks) that it didn't take care of? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added the image after a protected edit request, and it was protected on Commons by J Milburn right away. I only did it because I knew I had a Commons admin, J Milburn, accessible on IRC and he actually got it done right as I was asking (so no, it wouldn't have been up longer than another 2 seconds, Δ). Although it might not seem like it always, I generally know what I'm doing, and I didn't see much bother in reuploading locally if both the local and Commons pages were protected right away. In any case, I didn't even realize that MPUploadBot would automatically upload a local copy each time. —fetch·comms 01:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing wrong with what your doing, except before adding it to the main page make sure the image is protected. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 02:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Would X! consider expanding the purview of MPUploadBot to locally uploading and protecting the Commons images on tomorrow's main page instead of today's (subject of course to BAG approval), thereby preventing the current race condition?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought it already did? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This image was added by a protected edit request, so the bot didn't know. I think it already does, as HJ said. —fetch·comms 02:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OIC, never mind then. How about encouraging dual admins (here and Commons) to handle image-related protected edit requests for the Main Page?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not who does the edit requests. It's just forgetting to either protect on commons or reupload before they press "save" (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It does. Of course, due to the multiple API calls and lag, server load, etc, it can take up to a minute for the images to be uploaded. The bigger issue at hand here is that people put images on the main page without protecting them. I also agree with HJ that trouts are not the best way to fix this, because by trouting every single one of the 1500 admins for the actions of one, you're just irritating the others every time you do this. (X! · talk)  · @143  ·  02:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the bigger issue and the trout. I work extensively ITN and frequently add images to the Main Page as part of that, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes to copy the Commons image and upload it locally. I don't mean this to seem personally directed, but I can't understand why people are still adding Commons images. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The only way to truly make people responsible is to make an abuse filter that asks for them to confirm if they add an image that wasn't there before. (X! · talk)  · @505  ·  11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I just want to clarify that I do not think anyone updating the main page is doing a bad job. Hope no one took it that way. J Milburn (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Technical problem with sections in new format

This is probably not the right place to report this, but I could not find another. (Where should technical issues be reported?)

The issue is with the placement of the [edit] link in sections.

In the new format (dunno if it also exists in the old), the article Vermont Republic has several sections (History, Founding, Constitution and frame of government) that have images to their right. When the browser (tried FF 3.6.6 and IE 8.0.6001) is relatively narrow, everything looks fine, but if the user widens the window, the [edit] tag moves down (relative to the section's text). It looks as though these tags might be staying in place relative to the images, while the text is reformatted to fill the browser window.

Bloody Viking (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Village pump (technical), for future reference... –xeno^talk 14:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not related to the new format, it's the old "bunching" problem, fixed by using {{FixBunching}} template. – ukexpat (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now  Done, though the size of the thumbnails should probably be increased to fill up the white spaces. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism

Resolved

 – WP:DNFTT - Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A couple of anonymous editors are trying to report suspected socks of GoRight and other involved editors keep ignoring it. It's clear that a number of people suspect these accounts are socks, so why can't we all AGF and keep the listings up? There is no requirement beyond that someone suspects they are a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.171.176.249 (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC) I've fully protected the userpage for the time being. I will add only that mere suspicions shouldn't be left there indefinitely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Umm, this is about his socks, like SafelyAnonymous and STOATblog and Ricky81682, not about GoRight's page. Everyone knows GoRight is socking. It's such good socking that people can find the socks even the CU proves nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.170.210.155 (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:SPI

Admins, there is currently a backlog at sockpuppet investigations which need good and responsible administrators to go over and make those tough calls. Remember that any administrator can take action on any SPI case and mark as closed if needed. If anybody needs any help as far as whether or not CheckUser is needed, feel free to let us know or, if privacy is needed, via email if necessary. Regards, –MuZemike 07:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim

I feel that the NAC closure of this AfD as "nomination withdrawn" was inappropriate and in violation of WP:NACD which clearly states that non-admin closures are reserved for clearly non-controversial situations. This AfD was anything but. Although the nominator has changed his mind regarding deletion, at the time of the closure there were a substantial number of non-retracted "delete" !votes. The AfD had another day to run at the time it was closed. While I am not sure if relisting or reopening it for a day will do much good, I request that the closure be reviewed by an admin and be changed from a procedural close to a substantive one (keep/no consensus/delete). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but you're quite right; controversial AfD discussions are not suitable for non-admin closure. I've reverted the close and will explain why on the user's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'd still like an admin to take a look at this AfD to see if anything administrative needs to be done (re-closing, relisting or whatever). Nsk92 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm a keep !vote in that AfD and I, too, felt the NAC in this case was poorly-applied, even if it essentially accomplished my hoped-for outcome with this particular discussion. The AfD in question is/was way too hotly-contested to be closed as "nomination withdrawn." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I have closed a few as "nomination withdrawn" with an outstanding "per nom" delete !vote or 2 (and clearly stating in my closing rationale that I understand that there is a rule and I'm ignoring it) but this one had too many delete !votes with extended rationales to be closed that way, admin or not. This one should have been left to continue with one less delete !voter. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Check his contribs: Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) Today alone he has closed or relisted nearly 100 AfD's. I haven't checked if many of them were inappropriate or not, but I find it hard to believe that over 100 AfD's are eligible for an appropriate non-admin closure in one day. In particular, he closed an AfD that I was watching: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trucks and Bus Company. He re-listed it once and then closed it as no consensus, despite there being only a single vote! I have reverted his closure. I strongly believe this user should refrain from non-admin closures except in extremely obvious circumstances, like uncontroversial nomination withdrawls. I request that an admin go through his contributions and revert any inappropriate non-admin closures. SnottyWong ^gossip 01:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • • • Er, a "single (!)vote" looks like a no consensus to actually delete it to me. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I checked quite a number of his closes/relists and they seem all to be very good -either he closed 100%-keep discussions as keep, or he closed as no consensus (making it clear that it can be speedily renominated) when, even after a relist, no other editor showed up. In my opinion, excellent work for the AfD backlog. Of course if something inappropriate comes out, it should be reverted, like for everyone. --Cyclopia^talk 01:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Ron is our most prolific NACer and his closes are generally speaking quite sound; I don't see a problem with the particular close SnottyWong referenced, either. Also, I don't like the idea of the AfD nominator reverting a close, even if it's an NAC; either take it to DRV or find an admin willing to revert it. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request removal of topic ban

User NW issued an "indefinite topic ban" for what he believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. If you look at the time line below, after the second editor stepped in I backed off and went to the talk page (the way wikipedia is supposed to work). I accepted the consensus and walked away as over the next 6.5 hours I did nothing to the page in question. The topic ban issued by NW does not follow the same logic, severity of offense, or level of fairness that other admins have issued on [10]. Indefinite topic bans in every case except mine have been sockpuppeting or shorter incremental bans leading up to a total ban. I have never before had a topic ban of any length of time or even a warning. I request the ban be lifted with time served, or something much more reasonable.

My first eddit as of 00:04, 4 July. [11]

edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [12]

I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [13]

edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July. [14]

I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [15]

I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [16]

I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July. [17]

I was blocked for one week as of 08:00, 4 July. [18] --Duchamps_comb MFA 00:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A quick review of the log of sanctions [19] shows that most bans have been for six months, one for one month. Why not come back after a month and ask again? In the meanwhile, continue to edit Wikipedia productively, and after that time I am sure you will find a much more sympathetic audience here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. However your assessment of the log of sanctions is utterly incorrect. There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. I do not see a single user with a six months ban. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given indefinite.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is probably because other administrators are far more lenient than I am. I, however, have little patience for source misrepresentation and other generally disruptive behavior. NW (Talk) 01:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit I thought (WND) Worldnetdaily.com was RS and it is not. However I did not misrepresent, or intentionally misrepresent anything. My first edit where I inserted the two new topics however did need more research and better grammar before I put them in. Please show my misrepresentation, I am always open minded in learning and bettering my self.--Duchamps_comb MFA 01:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the difference between my assessment of the sanctions log and Duchamps_comb's is based on the distinction between a block and a ban, which I assume Duchamps_comb didn't take note of. The blocks are of many and varied lengths (depending of course on all sort of criteria; see WP:Blocking policy); the topic bans I've seen were for 1, 3, or 6 months - and note that Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation doesn't impose any limit on discretionary topic bans. Seriously, come back after a month. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist. --Duchamps_comb MFA 02:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I advised Duchamps_comb to wait for awhile before requesting a lifting of the restriction. I see that they fail to take good advice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Definitely no reason to lift the topic ban at this time, considering the edits that were the subject of the edit war above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Source misrepresentation should lead very quickly to an indefinite block, not just a ban. Still, this seems like an appropriate action on NW's part, and supported by the community probation. Duchamps_comb, people really do tend to be pretty lenient around here - if you edit productively on some unrelated topics and ask again with the new year there is a good chance your appeal would be successful. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal on ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Return_of_longtime_disruptive_user_under_another_new_sockpuppet_user_account_.28Filmcracker.29_registered_for_the_purpose_of_Wikistalking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL requested

Could somebody please do a quick REVDEL and remove this[20] from the history log? Certainly qualifies as RD2, especially given BLP considerations. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Review of my action welcomed, but I'm damn certain RD2 is appropriate here. TFOWR 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely redactable, but please try not to post diffs of these things on public noticeboards, where they only attract more attention. —fetch·comms 22:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick block review for an IP

I'll be off for a bit, and just blocked a persistently uncivil IP for 3 days. Somebody can feel free to lower the length, but considering they started their incivility, and edited over a period of over 24 hours, and proceeded to call people nazis, blank talk pages and the like after multiple final warnings, and the fact they don't think they've done anything wrong, I blocked for 3 days. Others feel free to change the block. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look. Calling people "nazis" and "furher" is clearly in violation of WP:NPA. Good block. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the two subsequent unblock requests i am inclined to agree with that assessment. Good block. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at MfD

Hello, there is a backlog about a week deep at WP:MfD. Not horribly pressing, but could use some attention. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposing community ban of User:Timothy Sheridan

Timothy Sheridan has been around since early 2007 and has endlessly tried to promote two websites (theubie.com and AmericaSmokeless.com) in the Vaporizer article. So far we got:

• At least a dozen of IP sockpuppets and two accounts.
• Both websites on the spam blacklist, though evasion attempts are still made.
• At least two reports to the unblock-en mailing list (I have only been in there for three months, but i believe older reports were also made) , with at least an equal number of reports on OTRS, all of which were refused for obvious reasons.
• Persistant personal attacks and conspiracy theories (Example) as to why his spam is not allowed, combined with semi-legal threats.
• General nonsense such as modifying other people's comments and AFD votes(AFD Diff) in a pointless attempt to have his spam article's undeleted. Ironically the AFD closed 5 years ago, after which it was changes to reflect "past consensus".

The user keeps coming back every few weeks at least, each time trying to add his link or rant somewhere that his product is being "unfairly treated". Be it the article talk page, Jimbo's talk page or some other location. he is more or less community banned as is (With no indication that his edits will ever change) so i would propose to formalize the current "De facto" community ban on User:Timothy Sheridan into a "de jure" one. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I am sad that it has come to this but it really seems that we cannot get through to Mr. Sheridan. If he didn't lace every single talkpage comment with links to his sites (now edited so as to avoid the blacklist), and wasn't so strident in his paranoia that we were all in the pay of The Man I think that he could have been a productive editor here. Syrthiss (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• I guess my cheque must have got lost in the post :-/ Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• theubie.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• americansmokeless.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Blacklist evasion and spam on that scale isn't particularly remarkable -- I see it all the time. However a persistent refusal to acknowledge Wikipedia is an encyclopedia + all that abuse = ban. MER-C 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, user clearly is not willing to discuss reasonably, long term spammer, blacklist evasion, etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support basically per MER-C. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support User is useless, he won't help the project, and isn't interested in improving. --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  I wouldn't go so far as to say he is useless. IMO thats a needless ad hominem. Syrthiss (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  I agree - that part is making things too personal (and is needless). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Dirk, and Rockstone (in nicer words). —fetch·comms 22:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion#Is MFD an appropriate venue to discuss portions of pages? and comment. –xeno^talk 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved for now Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to resolve the proximal issue but this general issue comes up rather often so comments are still invited. –xeno^talk 12:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion needs closing

Could someone uninvolved from the Ireland/British Isles/Troubles disputes please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LevenBoy and close it as they think fit, please. It's been sitting there with little input for a couple of days. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've only briefly scanned it and will probably leave it to someone else to close, but I'm a little concerned that this seeks to instate general sanctions based on a not-very-well-advertised ANI discussion. –xeno^talk 12:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The ANI discussion has been there for a while and most if not all of the involved editors have already commented there. If "new" accounts pop up and start doing the same thing, then they can always be warned before a sanction is imposed (if they haven't been SPI'd first - the list of indefblocked editors on this issue is quite long). Black Kite (t) (c) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - it is a fairly localized localised issue, so hopefully any interested parties have noticed it and had time to comment. –xeno^talk 13:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC closure

Could an uninvolved admin look close the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements‎? Thanks, nableezy - 23:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that there is no consensus for any of the proposals. Of course, if silence equals consent, my proposal is the answer.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not obvious at all. I see a proposal with 25 supports and 9 opposes with most of the others having equal levels of supports and opposes. The vote count is obviously not the most important thing, consensus is determined by the strength of an argument. Either way, the rfc could use an uninvolved admin looking over it. Or do you want to argue over that as well? nableezy - 03:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a try.  Sandstein  06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrey Stepanov

Please can someone take a look at the above page and the two links from it. Although I believe that User:Russavia is acting in good faith, s/he does not seem willing to communicate, and I'm unsure how to do the cleanup. If they both share the same name, the appropriate page for the footballer is Andrei Stepanov (footballer). The other person is an unsourced BLP whose author seems unsure of the man's first name, suggesting that Andrei and Andrey with hatnotes may be more appropriate.

With regards to cleanup, I'm unsure if all histories are correct, if all redirects redirect correctly, if any pages need to be deleted to move pages to their correct locations, and if there are any double redirects. I am certain that the DAB's What Links Here's are wrong, but as the footballer is in the wrong location, and pending help in deciding whether the other person's name is Andrey or Andrei, there is little value in correcting these just yet.

Thanks in advance, WFC (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a Russian name, Андрей, from the same roots as "Andrew", but pronounced with a short "y" as in "yellow" sound at the end. English doesn't have a single universally accepted transliteration of that й letter - you will see it written in English as y, i, and even (though I realize your head may explode, here) j. It's an appropriate disambiguation page, as is Andrei Stepanov, which I see you tagged for speedy deletion. BTW, I referenced and expanded the second one, Andrei Ivanovich Stepanov, he seems to be a reasonably notable diplomat, the first (post-Soviet) Russian ambassador to Switzerland, and the first (ever!) Russian ambassador to Liechtenstein. Not really Talleyrand, but not chopped liver either. --GRuban (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, and good work on that article. I agree, he does seem notable. I tagged the pages for speedy deletion because at that stage the article hadn't been created (and therefore I was correct to tag it as a CSD G6). I now agree that they should be redirects, but I have kept them tagged for the reason below.

The incomplete maintenance still needs to be dealt with. The two pages I tagged need to be temporarily deleted for maintenance purposes. Andrei Stepanov's talk page + Andrey Nikolayevich Stepanov‎ need to be moved to Andre(i/y/j as preferred) Stephanov (footballer). At that stage the links to the current DAB can be fixed to point to him, and then the DABs can be recreated. For absolutely clarity, I now agree that they both need to be redirects, but they need to be temporarily deleted to sort out the absolute mess that User:Russavia (an administrator on the commons who really should have known better) has left. WFC (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to exactly what is requested here. Is it desired that "Andrey Stepanov" is to be the dab page, with "Andrei Stepanov" and "Andrej Stepanov" redirects to the dab page? Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirects have been created, and a couple of G6s declined. It looks like the only other issue to be decided is that of the title of the article about the Estonian football player. This can be done by either boldly moving the article, or filing a WP:RM and seeing whether there is consensus that he does not have a middle name. Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the football players' article has been moved, so this issue is now resolved (I think). Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, firstly my apologies for not replying sooner, i thought i did. doesn't help having 50+ tabs open with a variety of things going on. As per Gruban, there is obviously a need for the disambig page. In relation to Andrey Nikolayevich Stepanov, I did the move based upon him being of Russian descent - although Estonian people don't use middle names or whatever, Russians do, and as he has a history of playing a large part of his career in Russia, there is obviously a need for his Russian name in the article. If it needs to be moved to Andrei Stepanov (footballer), then that is ok with me, but in terms of other articles, it is long standing practice on WP for us to disambig Russian people with their patrynomic, so Andrei Ivanovich Stepanov stays there instead of being at another placename because does one disambig him as a diplomat, ambassador, professor, educator, rector, author or historian? In terms of spelling of Andrei, I always use Andrey in real life, but on WP it seems WP:RUS says we use Andrei, so that move will be done by myself too. And I will also do the fixing of wikilinks. If anyone needs anything else, just let me know on my talk page page. Cheers,--Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 09:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Andrei Stepanov (footballer) is now with correct name. But one thing I don't understand is, why Andrei Stepanov redirects to Andrey Stepanov, where are two links: 1)Andrei Ivanovich Stepanov and 2)Andrei Stepanov (footballer). Then the disamig. page should be in Andrei Stepanov. And there is no need for Russian name. Thanks for cleaning the mess. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Dab page now at Andrei Stepanov. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. WFC (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

There is a bit of a backlog at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. It's a bit unfair if the reports go stale. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is being dealt with, and might not be as bad as I initially thought. Thanks, Verbal chat 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Guideline RfC needing closure

There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline about whether the promote the proposal there to guideline status. It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator could review the RfC there and decide how it should be closed. Thank you in advance! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it. Regards SoWhy 19:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done (Hopefully those who "lost" the argument won't hate me too much... ;-) Unfortunately, someone always has to lose.) Regards SoWhy 20:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

And thanks again! I certainly appreciate it. :-) Anyway, that's why they pay you the big bucks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

DRV backlog

Two discussions at WP:DRV need closing. Thanks. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Luckily I'm not very active these days so, if I upset people with those closes, I might not be around often enough to feel the wrath Regards SoWhy 21:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion: User:Orsahnses?

Resolved

 – Added to WP:BU. Additional edits by socks can be deleted on sight (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

As the list of socks grows, and considering that this has been occurring now for over a year, is it now time to discuss a community ban of the user? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What's there to discuss. He's been blocked indefinitely for a full year, and has no chance of coming back given his continuing behaviour. Looks banned to me. --erachima talk 12:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Blocked indefinitely for a full year? It's an oxymoron - no offense... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the term indefinitely, Doc. Indefinitely doesn't mean permanently, it means "without a foreseeable end". The implication, I believe, was that he was blocked indefinitely a year ago and has remained blocked since then. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking he understood, but he wanted to point out the oxymoron (indefinitely definite)...not going to speculate on why though. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree, but a community ban gives editors confidence to revert. WP:3RR doesn't apply when reverting banned users, but does when reverting indef blocked users. Arguably, an indef'd user with no admin willing to unblock is de facto banned... but I wouldn't want to revert repeatedly and risk myself getting blocked. TFOWR 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: on top of sockpuppetry, even after a year, he has not learn to be civil. This personal attack recently, and an attack from last year. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: per what TFOWR said; I used to just say editors need this protection, but if no progress is made on a recent (but separate) matter, I may have to revise this opinion to mean "both admins and editors need to be protected". Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. TFOWR 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. User is de facto banned; let's make it de jure, per TFOWR's concerns. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per arguments by Elockid and TFOWR. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Pretty easy call, really. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per Salvio. —fetch·comms 01:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Here again, uncivil multi-socks that have no redeeming qualities need a ban to encourage good-faith editors not to be afraid of WP:3RR. I see unanimous support for a ban, which is encouraging. Jusdafax 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Support "Duh!"... Doc9871 (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2010 (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.

user:Article editor

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, editor in question was never engaged concerning this issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, a large number (several tens) of redirects created by Article editor (talk · contribs) have shown up at WP:RFD lately (last few weeks). This may indicate a problem with the user's understanding of how to use redirects. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question has been notified of this report. "Stupid rules"... Doc9871 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually brought this up the other day on another user's talk: User talk:Bridgeplayer#user:Article editor. Now that it's been posted centrally I suppose it's worth taking it here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I see, there has been no attempt to engage this editor on their talk page about this issue. Also, this should be posted on AN/I as that is a better venue for this. Until then, not only is there no need for administrator action but there is also a need to try to engage the editor in question on their talk page instead of bringing the drama to a noticeboard that doesn't deal with this issue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock Help

I need an admin who's familiar with rangeblocks. Got a user with dynamic IPs creating VERY inappropriate posts on Userpages and User Talk pages. IPs geolocate to same area and ISP. Anyone willing to help? N419BH 19:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there might be a couple of short-ish range blocks to had. I'm taking a closer look now.. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

70.129.16.0/21 can probably be blocked for a while. 70.251-255 looks a bit too big. I recommend semi- where appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

For information, the Arbitration Committee has just put out a statement advising administrators how to handle disputes concerning Checkuser blocks. The full text is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

G10 deletion or no?

I declined User_talk:Geo_Swan/Iqinn_grounds/caveat because I felt that although there was mild wikilawyering, that is was a page being set up for evidence, and above they were making their case. However, the editor who csded it had a valid point. (They are the subject of what they consider personal attacks) and so I am not sure exactly what to do in this case. Let's try to figure out what to do with it... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is such a page required on wiki? If one wants to gather evidence in relation to a planned ANI post, can't he or she do that with his or her preferred word processing software or simple plain-text program? Then when one is ready just copy-paste into ANI? N419BH 04:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It's policy... Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner." But we could change it? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's using that more as an excuse than for actual purposes. Even if he were using multiple computers to prepare a case there are things such a flash drives and e-mailing yourself. If it were just diffs I wouldn't have a problem with it. But it's more than that. It names an editor and makes an accusation. N419BH 04:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Did we drop the ball on this?

I just read this article about Wikipedia (and a few editors) in FrontPageMag. While a lot of it sounds like sour grapes, there are more than enough reasonably accurate-sounding assertions made that seem credible.What's the scoop? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Cimicifugia and Special:DeletedContributions/Cimicifugia. Prodego ^talk 17:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Part of the article refers to this discussion and the associated article edits: Talk:The New York Times#new section on nytimes and holocaust. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's hard to tell from the article, since it's so one-sided, but this looks to me like a case of an editor who --rightly or wrongly-- came across as a supporter of The Truth™, which has always been a fast ticket to a long block. If she (is Karin a female name?) was contributing to Wikipedia in a similar tone to the section of that article explaining what The Times did, I could easily see her getting ruled against by third parties by virtue of her contributions being less neutral in tone even if they were more accurate (which I have no way of assessing without seeing the edits and sources in question), and of course, accusing your opponents of holocaust denial is a huge mistake. --erachima talk 18:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the attitude of the user on their talk page, they should not have been blocked for personal attacks. They recieved too much aggression and not enough help. That said, the content views may have been problematic, and/or working with others may have been a problem. I haven't looked in to that aspect much. But they seemed in good faith. And I don't like blocking people acting in good faith. Prodego ^talk 18:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's laughable that anyone here actually takes that article seriously. Have you even investigated the site where it's posted? It's essentially an extreme right-wing conspiracy and hate site with a specific agenda. There's a big logo on the same page that proclaims "Help us stop Obama's radical transofrmation of America", along with plenty of sensationalist articles with misleading, prejudiced titles like "Cutting their own throats: Dutch municipality funding Sharia website", "Reid’s Two-Faced Immigration Record", and "The Music World Goes Anti-Israel – Part III". There are no real news articles on there, just a bunch of opinion pieces full of misrepresented factoids and personal bias. The internet has lots of these sites, none of them are worth anyone's time. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact that requires people to accept the biased POV of agenda-driven extremists. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I must say, however, I was very moved by the logo on their page that says "This is our Paul Revere time: and we must spread the word as patriots have always done when America is in danger". It really convinced me that this is a useful site and not a crackpot conspiracy mill. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you are not a newbie given your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edits ever are what they are. WP:SOCK comes to mind. Frankly, your immediate attack on your very first edit ever from your sock lends a little more credence to the claims of the editor complaining about people like you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to change the subject? So you're saying Wikipedia should allow people with agendas to just write whatever they like here when they resort to posting screeds on extreme right-wing agenda sites? Sounds like you really have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. I am not breaking any "Wiki Rules" by calling a spade a WP:SPADE. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hiya! I've got over 22,000 edits and have been on Wikipedia for over 4 1/2 years. Since the number of edits seems to mean something to you, I though maybe we'd talk. Now, Legitimate (you don't mind if I call you Legitimate, do you?), WP:AGF doesn't extend to outside sources -- it's a rule for dealing with other wikipedians in a collegial manner. I'm free to say that, in general, FrontPageMag is even less of a source of valid criticism than your average Daily Kos diary, and that their reputation for reasoned analysis, careful fact-checking, and solid reporting was left torn and tattered on the state highway minutes after they started the site. See? No AGF violation. Yeah, User:69.211.7.137 should have put it smoother and calmer, but it's not an AGF violation. The possible AGF violation is coming from you, Legitimate -- but you're not alone. It's a overwhelming tendency among nearly everyone, left, right, or center, to examine IP edit counts in the light of "do they agree with me or not?", and praise or revile accordingly. 69 doesn't seem to like FPD and, in admittedly intemperate language, states that it is nothing worth paying attention to, which is a perfectly reasonable position. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to change the subject? So you're saying Wikipedia should allow people with agendas to just write whatever they like here when they resort to posting screeds on extreme right-wing agenda sites? Sounds like you really have the interests of Wikipedia at heart. I am not breaking any "Wiki Rules" by calling a spade a WP:SPADE. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's ignore the 69anon for the time being. Granted, the website is ...less than optimal. As well, its clear this Karin person wrote the article after getting kicked the crap kicked out of him and shown the door in short order. He feels he has a reason to be a little biased about our culture (such as it is) . He feels that there was a coordinated effort, at least partially involving User:Bali_ultimate (btw, should we get their input here?) to undo all of his edits, which - if the external link is an accurate telling - seems surprisingly well-sourced. It would be interesting to see what these reverted edits were. I know we aren't Holocaust Deniers - that sort of nonsense is as stupid as Flat Earth Theory. And while we are often ill-tempered jackasses, we are not stupid.

So, take away the guy/gal's anger at getting reverted and indef'd and look at the source material. Holocaust Denial in the WWII media sounds really intriguing; it might make an excellent article, sourced correctly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The user was not indef'd and is currently not blocked[21]. S/he has one 30h 3RR block and one 24h incivility block. See also[22]and the user's other effort[23]. PhGustaf (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict):::. FrontPage Magazine has an article, and evidently an agenda. Dougweller (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, Doug. I'm not saying we shouldn't consider the source, but instead simply look at the edits. Self-policing ourselves makes us a better community, right? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous, I'm being attacked for participating in a discussion by sharing that the website is basically an open blog with an agenda? It is demanded that I assume good faith, yet everyone automatically assumed bad faith of someone using an IP. Maybe "Karin" is right after all. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, WP:NPA, Jack. Calling others trolls without any evidence at all is a violation of that, it would seem. 69.211.7.137 (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you done now, 69anon? We hear you. We get your point. Assuming that we hate you bc you are an IP and not going somewhere constructive and editing something (your first three edits are here? In AN? Come on, now) is what prompted the wikilink to not feeding the trolls. I used it because there simply isn't a quicklink to something along the lines of We-Ain't-Noticing-Kids'-Erratic-Rants. Maybe you could create such a tag. until then, look, listen and learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This subject came up a few days ago, either here or at ANI; I left a comment on a related story written by the same author, but I can't find it in the archives. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for even suggesting this, but it wouldn't have been purged by an admin, could it (thereby making it more difficult to find)? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Purged? What do you mean? Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean, deleted along with edit history, oversighted, etc. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine why this would have been done. The only recent deletion from this page was a couple of edits from the 13th; it was a post made by a logged-in user, and the thing I'm talking about was posted by an IP address. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The matter is discussed at this[24] AN/I thread. It's not pretty. PhGustaf (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)What a disgusting, disgusting, disgusting spectacle. It was a valid topic. The new editor was treated like shit. Shit. Most of the editors involved in this tawdry lynching behaved like grinning mindless thugs. And some of you were worse, you behaved like sadistic pious beaurocrats. Ugh. I need a long shower. Anthony (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that FrontPageMag isn't the most reliable of sources. However, it will likely make The New York Times and the Holocaust a search term worthy of a redirect to the appropriate section in The New York Times. That used to be The New York Times#Nazis, Jews, Soviet Union, and Ukraine in World War II, which seemed a bit long to me, so I boldly shortened it to The New York Times#World War II (and added a sentence on the Times's own article on the subject). The article seems to have been salted; could an administrator be kind enough to make The New York Times and the Holocaust a redirect to The New York Times#World War II? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, and still protected. —fetch·comms 01:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Anthony. It is utterly disgusting. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How sadly ironic this is. A question is raised about whether people dropped the ball, when someone who was thought to be "new" (but who clearly, as many people do, had read Wikipedia for a while before writing and learned about verifiability and suchlike — People do do this, you know.) was met with harshness by established editors. And in the ensuing discussion of that question, as soon as someone that also looks "new" steps in with a "consider the source" argument — an argument that established editors should have long experience of addressing, given what we do here — established editors do the very same thing all over again, immediately treating the "new" person dismissively, patronizingly, and in general badly. I think the answer here is "Jack Sebastian et al., you're still dropping the ball even now.". Uncle G (talk) 06:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Pardon me, Uncle G, but I was the one asking whether we treated the writer poorly while here, and whether his contributions might have enough merit for inclusuon. How, precisely, did you arrive at the destination during your sermon that I had maltreated the user in question? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I read your edits where you called the person without an account a "troll" one two three four five times over, suggested that xe was a sockpuppet (twice), and then told xem that xe was a ranting erratic kid who should shut up. And all because someone without an account had the temerity to contribute to a discussion on a well-known noticeboard an argument that a source had a bias. Shame on you. Uncle G (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm happy to invite the ire of a magazine like that. Might as well be giving ourselves the vapors over what WND has to say. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, I don't really care about the knuckleheads externally who rant and rail against WIkipedia daily. I was asking whether the topic merited more discussion than appears to have been given. Again, I am not justifying the person's behavior nor the group that leapt to his defense. I am saying that politics and bruised egos aside, there might have been a nifty article there. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• +1 to Uncle G. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• +1000 to Uncle G (talk) (!) Although I must mention as a neophyte myself, currently embattled in contention over my user name which I personally feel has more to do with disambiguation and faux piety than actual offense - with many users voting to disallow my username "after searching" or subsequent to being informed of an obscure slang existing in urban culture - that for every imperious post from those Wiki community members who patronize and seemingly SEEK problematic minutiae: there's been equal support from a resilient, very thoughtful membership herein which is an enchanting network amenity, indeed, to witness.

If the "petty, sneering mob" is continually countered by an olive branch-bearing corps of ardent Wiki friends, perhaps they'll begin to evaluate the value of diversity in contributors and exercise their fervid due diligence beyond concomitant quarreling. Wolfpussy ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC).

• Frontpagemag's opinion is a sad, twisted joke. Speaking as someone who was actually a direct target of one of those CAMERA agents, I stopped reading at the "I was aware the Electronic Intifada had worked the Wiki system so that CAMERA volunteers had been banned..." part, and their take on the NYT+Holocaust is no better. Cimicifugia got precisely the treatment that he/she deserved. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• A summary of the CAMERA experience is here. Were you involved in the NY Times/holocaust matter which is the subject of this thread, Tarc? Anthony (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

+1 to Uncle G also. Treating the IP like that was uncalled for. I'm curious why Jack seems convinced the IP was a teenage girl... is someone on IRC doing out-of-process checkusers for people? Just wondering, unless Jack knows something the rest of us don't. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than a dry news blurb, a far better take on the matter can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign. As for this, I was involved somewhat in one of the earlier AfDs. I just happen to find frontpagemag's take on this to be outright fraudulent. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I made my views on how that article and editor were handled plain before at AN/I - we handled it very badly. However, there is a solution: Contemporary media coverage of the Holocaust is a notable topic, yet we have no article. I was planning to help write this but I haven't got around to it yet. There's sources in the previous AN/I thread and AfD. Fences&Windows 23:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unclosed AfD

Resolved

 – AFD transcluded to today's log; will run for another 7 days. –xeno^talk 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nontheism has been open for a couple of weeks, and I don't see any evidence that it has been relisted. I think it may need to be closed, and somehow slipped through the cracks. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to have ever been transcluded at WP:AFD and therefore may not have been drawn from a representative sample. –xeno^talk 21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch! I see you also brought this up at the talk page, so I'll comment more substantively there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

Following a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

Remedy 20 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list ("Miacek topic banned") is lifted.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Moving the content of Liang mou to pseudo-models

Resolved

 – Article moved and instructions given. —DoRD (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have never heard anyone using liang mou to describe a bunch of models known as "leng mo" or pseudo-models in Hong Kong. A simple googling would reveal that "liang mou" is only used in Wikipedia, whereas "pseudo-models" is used by Cnngo.com, South China Morning Post and other major English media.

I propose moving the content of liang mou to pseudo-models, and deleting "liang mou" altogether.Germanomaniac (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN isn't the appropriate place for this. Please read WP:MERGE and open a merge discussion on the talk page of one of the articles. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, pseudo-models is a redirect created today by Germanomaniac, so I will move the article for them. Germanomaniac: In future, you can simply move the article yourself or, for assistance, visit the correct venue. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!Germanomaniac (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on user conduct - Sven70

Hello, as suggested on the RfC page, I am posting here to let everyone know about an RfC on Sven70. I have just moved the RfC to the certified section, as two other users have certified it. The RfC may be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sven70. Netalarm^talk 10:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey there admins. I have a quick question. I am working on a bot to tag blatant vandalism/attack pages automatically. Instead of muddling with regexes, I was planning on using a simple artifical intellegence engine. The way one trains this engine is by feeding it text (of a deleted vandalism page), and a tag (good/bad). I, being a normal nonadmin, cannot view deleted pages. However, User:Fetchcomms is, and offered to help me obtain the text of a preselected group of deleted pages, by running a script. He did want me to verify that he would not be breaking any rules by giving the text of these deleted articles to a nonadmin. Would he be breaking any rules? Remember that he would be giving the text to me over email, and I would use the text to train the bot, then delete the files once I have the bot up and running. Thanks, Tim1357 ^talk 01:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Non-admin answer: in general sharing deleted files has caused great uproar in the past. For a specific and good cause like this I suspect it would be fine. Also, I've only encountered you here and again, but what I've seen has been solid. You might consider just becoming an admin. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  There are ways to do this that don't involve getting deleted contributions. Depending on how many input pages you want, you could grab a current version of every page that's nominated in one form or another and wait a week (or less). Similarly, you could grab an old dump and see which pages were removed in the interim (probably fewer since these pages would be more established). If you can write an AI engine this should be no problem. Depending on the method, this might actually be quicker (and more recent) than getting actual deleted page text. Shadowjams (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I didnt write the engine, I just grabbed some open source code, and used it with mine. That being said, I did want to have quite a few pages (300 or so, but more is always better). I did consider your suggestion, but concluded that it would take too long to gather the ammount of data I wanted. Tim1357 ^talk 08:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the conversion rate is on AfD noms, but Monday has 88 pages listed. If we assume it's 50%, 88 * 7 / 2 = 308, so I think looking at all the deletion methods for a week would probably hit your number. I don't have an issue with you getting a hold of deleted pages, particularly if they're selected at random, but this method could supplement it. Curious to know what you find. Shadowjams (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it after re-reading your first post, I see two things. I guess what you're looking for too is probably best found in CSD pages, rather than AfD. AfD pages are going to be a lot more subtle than CSD and you'd need a lot more than 300 pages to make sense of them. So maybe those CSD pages won't be quick enough (although you might be surprised; but they get deleted quick so that requires a more intensive network load).

If you were interested in AfD though, I just did a very quick (not by hand, so might be inaccurate) look at AfDs from July 11. They've all been closed. Of the 80 there, approximately 49 were closed as delete, for a percentage of 61.25%. That could provide some context (and then prod and CSD have different numbers altogether. Shadowjams (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, CSDs only. Tim1357 ^talk 22:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Sole Soul (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I think ClueBot could use a friend. Seems to be a no-brainer. Trained TagBot = less CSD tagging for us Hugglers Killers (sounds better). Of course, you could also consider just posting your name and the answers to three simple questions (yeah right) at WP:RFA. N419BH 14:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Yesterday somebody edited the article of the boxer Paul Briggs changing his nationality from "Australian" to "New Zealand". The edit was accepted by a reviewer. I'd like to know what are the bases for this change becauseas far as I can see no source was provided. The webpage boxrec has him as Australian: [25]. I request admins look into it.  Dr. Loosmark  12:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot, the edit I am talking about is this: [26]  Dr. Loosmark  12:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that you're requesting somebody be blocked or that a page be deleted or protected, so I'm not sure what you want an administrator to do. If the edit is vandalism or you disagree with it, revert it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how changing one's nationality is a BLP violation. Maybe vandalism or just a mistake, but certainly not a BLP violation.--Atlan (talk) 12:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The reviewer's job is to assess whether or not the edit is vandalism, i.e. intentional disruption of the article. Assuming good faith, it's not clear that that edit was vandalism, and given that your source gives indications of competing claims to nationality this would seem a legitimate content issue. I've removed the nationality assignation temporarily until an authoritative source is forthcoming. Skomorokh 12:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what do you mean with the comment that my source gives indications of competing claims to nationality. My source simply states he's Australian. And frankly I am puzzled that a reviewer accepted the edit since no source was provided for the change of nationality. IMO edits like that on a BLP should be sourced to be accepted or at least some rationale provided either on the talk page or in the edit summary. Otherwise having reviewers is more or less useless.  Dr. Loosmark  12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it insulting or otherwise detrimental to the person to be called a New Zealander - even if accidentally? Not a BLP violation, clearly - it's a content dispute. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I see no attempt from you to discuss this with the reviewer. I don't know if non-admins can see reviewers, so if not, withdrawn, but if so, you came to AN way, way too fast. --Golbez (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Bwilkins, but I disagree. It's clearly not a "content dispute" as no sources were presented for the New Zealander nationality. As for being insulting or otherwise detrimental, it's not insulting but whether it's detrimental or not we simply don't know. A BLP has to be accurate and unsourced claims simply should not be allowed.  Dr. Loosmark  14:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You feel strongly about proper sourcing of BLP articles, yet you come up with another wiki as a source. Don't we have anything better than Boxrec to verify this guy's nationality?--Atlan (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've found a source (his official website) which states that he's an Aussie, who was born in New Zealand. This isn't hugely unusual - Kiwis and Aussies can live and work in both countries, so there tends to be fair bit of to-ing and fro-ing.

I agree that this isn't a BLP vio, and per WP:Reviewing a reviewer should accept edits if they aren't obvious BLP vios (or vandalism, etc). I suppose you could make a case that this constituted vandalism, but I'd be hesitant to do so, and I certainly can't fault the reviewer for accepting the edit.

TFOWR 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A7 backlog

FYI, there are 137 articles in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as importance or significance not asserted. I don't touch A7 with a bargepole, but somebody else might want to clean it out. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through M - Z in that specific category. Except for a few delete conflicts with other admins, I was able to clear out that range. Someday I'll lend you my bargepole :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if you are concerned about making mistakes, you can still help out with A7. Just stick to those obvious "Charlie is my bestest freind in teh whol wide world!!!!!!!" cases and leave the rest for someone else. Regards SoWhy 20:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

In the Infoboxes for currently living persons, their date of birth is listed, and afterwards (age XX). Is this age computer-calculated and updated on their date of birth, or is it necessary for an editor to go in and change it manually? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varkstuff (talk • contribs) 21:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A look at the infobox should tell you. I think they generally do it automatically. --Golbez (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The template {{Birth date and age}} calculates it automatically when the page is loaded; this means it is always up to date. Hope that helps. Rodhullandemu 21:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination)

Could an admin please take a look at this AfD and maybe close it? The AfD has run since 13:07, 16 July 2010 so it's been almost seven days. There has been a great deal of fairly obvious socking (as well as canvassing) going on there, and the page is becoming a bit of a circus. Nsk92 (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean AfD? --mboverload@ 05:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean AfD, sorry. Nsk92 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with letting it run through. Only another day and it looks pretty certain to be closed as delete. (On a side note shouldn't this really be on WP:ANI not WP:AN? Mauler90 _talk 05:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's about 5 hours to having run full seven days, so closing it now would essentially be on time. I don't think any groundbreaking new information is likely to come out in the next 5 hours that might sway the outcome. Regarding WP:AN/I, I would have posted there if I wanted a more formal SPI investigation, with possible blocks of sockpuppets, etc. In this case the sockpuppeting is so silly and transparent that I don't think this is necessary, at least not yet. It's just that the AfD looks to be a bit of an eye-sore and a circus, with new spa socks continuing to pop up. Nsk92 (talk) 06:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

7 days = 168 hours, and any deviation from this is a slope that will soon slide to 6 days and downwards. there's never been an AfD that has gone 160 hours that will be harmed by 8 hours more. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing early will just give an excuse to take it to DRV and prolong the circus. JohnCD (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the main reason not to close early. I agree it's a mess. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now it has been over 7 calendar days since the start of the AfD and all proper forms have been observed; the SPAs/socks still keep coming. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I closed the discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

76.66.193.119 (talk · contribs)

Apparently, I've been reported to WP:SPI as a sockpuppet, but I can't find the relevant discussion. Can someone indicate to me where it is? (see Talk:Python II ) -- the person who says s/he reported me refused to tell me who I am supposed to be a sock of. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the investigation you are looking for. Mauler90 _talk 06:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Refused? Where exactly did I refuse? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You accused me of being a sock, without pointing out who that would be, then when asked who that would be, your reply didn't address that point, followed by another reply, which you didn't bother to answer. I even waited 10 minutes on a relatively active discussion thread up to that point. Since you replied to my reply in less than 10 in the previous post-reply. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

OMG, I didn't answer for 10 minutes and somehow I'm refusing to answer you? Dude, I'm sorry if its 1 am my time and maybe, just maybe I was doing things like brushing my teeth and getting ready for bed. Nor was that an "active" discussion. Just because I reply once within 10 minutes does not mean I will continue doing so. Talk about impatient. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You had already filed an SPI report, but did not deign to tell me who I was accused of being. You didn't bother to tell me directly, I see no reason to not expect that you'd have not informed me, since I asked directly before you filed, who you thought I was supposed to be, at Talk:Python II - it's the first reply to your reply to my message. After which you replied but did not answer. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You've been notified now. This should always be done by the filer: it's "procedure". Whatever. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification is definitely not mandatory and in some cases is accepted as something that probably should not be done. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, sir! It's merely "courteous" to do it; never meant to imply it was policy. I know I'd want to know if I was reported to any board whatsoever, and I always inform an editor if I do so to them. "CYA" helps when in doubt. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I normally use auto tools to do SPI reports, so notifications happen automatically. In this case, he was just added to the existing report, so didn't think about it. There is no requirement to tell him, though I would have answered his question on the talk page had he bothered waiting more than 10 minutes for a freakin answer. The original report was filed back on the 19th, so it isn't as if I "filed" the report first. I just added him to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you notify them, then they have no "cause" to report it like this. Isn't that the actual reason this is here? Just read the beginning of this quacking thread. Doc9871 (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Noted :-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, those who yell "I was never told! The admin is a bad person" are typically guilty as hell and looking for any excuse not to be held accountable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Al Jarreau article might need watching

Hi! News item has just come in about Al Jarreau being critically ill in hospital. I've added a spot of information and referenced them (not very well, I'm afraid!). I haven't protected the page, as yet there is no activity there. However, there may well be there before long, so you might want to keep an eye on the page.

I know this next question shouldn't be asked here (I am aware of WP:HELP!), and being an admin, I really should know how to cite correctly... but I'm here now. Could someone point me to how I should be referencing things properly, and is there an idiots guide on how to do it for someone who finds the WP:CITE page too complicated to follow? Stephen! ^Coming... 11:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On topic: I've watchlisted it, thanks for the heads-up.

Off topic: Reflinks! I ran it against Al Jarreau to fix up the refs you added. That would pretty much be my "idiots guide" - do it as you did it, then get reflinks to fix it. TFOWR 11:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On and off topic - thanks! Stephen! ^Coming... 11:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Graham87 11:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Close of RfC overdue

Hello,WP:BLPRFC3 could use closing by an uninvolved admin. Between the talk page and the main page there is a lot to read. Have fun! Hobit (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be an easy close... look at the talk page where there seems to be general consensus (even among people with differing views) that there is no consensus except maybe for J0hn's minor wording tweak... but beyond that, should be easy.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I didn't know if saying that was appropriate in such a notice... Hobit (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is still kicking around at the weekend I'll look it over. Skomorokh 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Advice please

A sockpuppet recently created List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1980s and List of accidents and incidents involving the DC-3 in the 1970s. The first has been redirected to one of my sandboxes, where I have been working on that list for the last three weeks or so, and it is nearly ready for release - I'll sort out the R2 deletion when I've finished that list later today or sometime tomorrow. Can the 1970s list be deleted under G5? The 1970s list, when created properly will just have links to individual year lists due to the number of accidents to cover in each year. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Creating and Editing Sapt Kosi River

While trying to create and redirect the Sapt Kosi River Page to Koshi River, following message encountered,

The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. If you receive this message when trying to edit, create or move an existing page, follow these instructions: Any administrator can create or move this page for you. Please post a request at the Administrators' noticeboard. You may also contact any administrator on their talk page or by e-mail. Be sure to specify the exact title of the page you are trying to create or edit, and if it might be misunderstood (for example, an article with an unusual name), consider explaining briefly what you want to do. If you wrote any text, save it temporarily on your computer until you can edit the page.Thank you.

I tried to first create Sapt Kosi River as it is displaying with red font in the article Kunauli and then redirect it with #REDIRECT [[27]]

Please resolve the issue.

Angpradesh (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Sapt Kosi River -> Koshi River -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huge SPI Backlog

SPI is backlogged beyond belief, there are currently 25 pending non Checkuser cases, some of which have been open for over three weeks without any action. Any admin help at all would be appreciated. There are also 13 CU cases, but seeing as there are only about three active Checkusers, it might take quite a long while for them to be gone through as well. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close a ridiculous CFD?

The discussion for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets is clearly a SNOW keep. Can someone close the discussion and warn the nominator to quit screwing around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.208.225 (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to say who you are when you're logged in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I !voted "keep" in that discussion (which is actually about Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets), but it doesn't look like anywhere near "snow" status to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been closed as "snow keep" now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RegentsPark allegedly using admin powers to further his content opinions

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.

There is still insufficient evidence of RegentsPark being "involved" (his arb case statements linked somewhere below are not enough) such that this matter requires further discussion or action here. After 3 days' discussion, this means it's time to Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. That said, admins are reminded that virtually every editing-through-protection causes time-wasting controversy, regardless of how appropriate it was; and this should be taken into account in deciding whether it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia to do it. Rd232 ^talk 10:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

---

[28] [29] mikemikev (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this case not still at ArbCom? I think an admin making a single edit through page protection is hardly something that needs reporting here. Why not just discuss the edit on the talk page, reach a consensus, and then use {{editprotected}} to get an admin to edit to the preferred wording? Fences&Windows 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The protection policy explicitly permits admins to revert protected articles to older versions predating an edit war. The rationale given in WP:PROT is that "protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision." The protection did initially establish a contentious revision, which included heavily disputed material. RegentsPark reverted back to a version predating the edit war over this contentious material. It therefore appears on first review that RegentsPark was acting within the scope of the protection policy, to avoid rewarding Mikemikev and others who had edit-warred to insert this material. It's not an action I would have felt comfortable taking, but neither does it violate policy. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My intent was to revert the article to its state prior to the edit war. If consensus is reached on the talk page that the material referenced above ([30]) should be inserted in the article, then the editors can do so by placing an editprotected request on the article talk page with a pointer to that consensus. This issue has been brought up (at length!) on my talk page as well here but I personally don't see the big deal. If there is consensus, add it. If there isn't don't. That's the way wikipedia works. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The important question, which I’ve raised on RegentsPark’s talk page, is whether he was sufficiently uninvolved in the dispute over these articles to make this decision. Actions like this are supposed to be made by uninvolved administrators. RegentsPark is listed as an involved party in the arbitration case for this article, so I think it’s doubtful that he could be considered uninvolved here.

Incidentally, I don’t have an opinion either way about the content that RegentsPark removed; this is only about whether he used his sysop powers properly. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While I empathize with your concerns, do note that I'm not actually listed as an involved party in the arbitration case you refer to above. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn’t noticed you’d been removed from that list now. I’m pretty sure you were on it when the case was being requested, before it opened. A few editors stated that they wanted you to offer a statement for this case because they considered you involved in it, although I’m not able to link to the exact comments because I can’t seem to figure out where the discussion about the case from before it opened has been archived.

In any case, the more relevant point is the opinions you’ve expressed about article content in the evidence you presented for the arbitration case, as well as on talk pages for the articles (particularly the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article) and in the various AN/I threads about these articles. As I pointed out on your userpage, the viewpoints you’ve expressed about the content of these articles demonstrate that you have strong opinions about it, despite your claims to the contrary. Since your action while editing the article through page protection is consistent with the opinions you’ve expressed about article content in your arbitration evidence, I suspect that your opinion about article content influenced this decision.

Are any completely uninvolved administrators able to offer an opinion about whether RegentsPark used his sysop powers neutrally in this case? --Captain Occam (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely uninvolved in this. this should answer your question. Now I'm going back to being uninvolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What is a “dummy edit”, and how does it answer my question? I’m not familiar with that term. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A "dummy edit" is an edit that doesn't otherwise affect the article (e.g. it changes the amount of white-space). They're typically used to communicate via edit summaries. In this instance it appears that HJ Mitchell was using a dummy edit to indicate that they concurred with RegentsPark, i.e. a non-involved admin stated that they felt RegentsPark's action was correct. I too am hitherto uninvolved, and I too now return to being uninvolved ;-) TFOWR 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The point of the edit was to assert that, as an administrator with no involvement (or interest, quite frankly) in this, I believe RegentsPark acted properly. That phrasing was highly inflammatory. No comment on the underlying issue or any of the rest of the mess. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Highly inflammatory? Did you look at what the other option was (i.e. the version reverted to)? It essentially says the same thing. Mike comes across looking bad here, because (a) he was the only one reverting to this version and (b) the title and non-statement to open this thread is less than endearing. However, this isn't an obvious case of "that clearly should not be in the article ever" (or else Mike would have been blocked by now). Neither, in my opinion, comes across as particularly inflammatory; rather, they both seem like valid attempts to present an apparently factual, albeit controversial, statement in a manner that doesn't come across as racist.

Another editor, for example, has posted a reasonable comparison of the two, noting they both have their drawbacks and advantages. And I think a valid point made by Vecrumba is just because he (or anyone else) didn't join Mike in edit-warring doesn't mean he disagrees with Mike's version. The funny thing is, had Vercrumba joined Mike in the edit war, I imagine RegentPark's action would have been less likely to occur as then it would have come across as a more balanced dispute in the article history. But we should be encouraging editors not to edit war. If there's something very clearly wrong with the edit, okay, it definitely should be reverted despite protection, but if there isn't, it shouldn't just be reverted during protection because the edit war was three against one. As I said on WP:RFPP, I don't think RegentsPark's move qualifies as an abuse of power and shouldn't lead to much drama. However, I stand by my original position that this was not the best approach. It also seems to be sending the wrong message to a few editors to this article who don't seem to understand how protection usually works. -- tariqabjotu 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't hard to search the editing history of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case for early June. Captain Occam helped Rvcx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) add names to the "involved parties" list.[31] RegentsPark was never on the list for the ArbCom case.[32] Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The action itself is judged OK, and the "possibly involved" claims don't seem to amount anything. If there is a broader history of such issues, then go to WP:RFC/U. Otherwise, everyone go and do something useful. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the ArbCom has repeatedly stated that administrators must avoid even the slightest hint of conflict when it comes to protected articles. Additionally, they've said passed resolutions indicating that there is no shortage of admins and to have one of them review issues. It's pretty clear that RegentsPark did not avoid conflict and did not turf this to another administrator. His edit was improper and unadminlike. Is there any indication this is part of a larger issue? Basket of Puppies 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"It's pretty clear that RegentsPark did not avoid conflict..." - if evidence has been presented here to support that, I've missed it. Since the point of discussing this here is to get uninvolved opinions, it behooves those who want to argue that there is a problem to explain and evidence it adequately. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved and from my reading of everything it's clear that Regents missed his admin bit. If there are other incidents of this happening then I would be in favor of more review, but this appears to be unique. So we file it away and hope it was just a momentary lapse of good judgement and move on to more important things. Basket of Puppies 22:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear about "uninvolved" - it wasn't about you. I just meant that those involved understand the situation and can comment straight away; everyone else needs it clearly explained and evidenced. Rd232 ^talk 07:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realize the suggestion that RegentsPark was involved is unsubstantiated and appears to be mistaken, right? -- tariqabjotu 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was mistaken when I said that he’s listed as an involved party in the arbitration case, but he’s still participated in both it and the debates over these articles fairly actively. He’s submitted both a statement and evidence in the arbitration case, in which he expressed strong opinions about the content dispute over these articles. He’s also been involved in the debates over the articles on their talk pages, particularly the Snyderman and Rothman (study) article (i.e. this section).

“If there are other incidents of this happening then I would be in favor of more review, but this appears to be unique.”

There was another example of something similar to this around a year ago, which I discussed with another administrator (Dbachmann) here, eventually resulting in Dbachmann undoing RegentsPark’s action. The previous issue also involved page protection on a controversial article involving race: Race and crime in the United States (which at that point was just called “race and crime”). In 2007 and 2008, the article had two AFDs, the first of which reached the consensus “keep with cleanup” and the second of which did not reach a consensus at all. A few months after the second AFD, RegentsPark indefinitely protected the article as a redirect to Anthropological criminology, with this edit and this one.

I wasn’t involved in whatever discussion resulted in the indefinite page protection, but since I disagreed with the idea that Wikipedia should be permanently prevented from having an article on this topic, I asked RegentsPark under what conditions the redirect would be unprotected so that the article could be recreated, in this discussion and this one. His response was that I should create in a draft for the article in my userspace, and that he would unprotect the redirect when and if I’d created something good enough that there was a consensus to recreate the article. Around two months later he told me here that he had changed his mind, and would not ever be willing to unprotect the redirect, so that if I wanted the article to be recreated I would need to get someone else involved. (Which I did, hence Dbachmann’s eventual unprotection of the page.)

Do any uninvolved admins think that RegentsPark’s action in this case was unusual? Dbachmann obviously thought so, and it seems that way to me also. --Captain Occam (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Just a quick note to say that I am following this discussion with (bemused) interest and will be happy to respond to any meaningful queries. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are (uninvolved) administrators going to offer any more comments about this? If not, this thread will probably be archived soon, although there hasn’t yet been a consensus either way about whether or not RegentsPark has used his sysop powers inappropriately. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:UNINVOLVED and stop beating this dead horse. Can this please be closed by an "uninvolved" administrator, especially since CO has started canvassing for more input. Verbal chat 16:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I contacted the two admins whose comments I’d just replied to, because they didn’t seem to have noticed yet that I’d replied to them. Care to explain how letting someone know that you’ve replied to their comment is “canvassing”?

RegentsPark supported your side in your edit war with Mikemikev, and I know you’re glad that he did, but this isn’t an acceptable reason to try and shut down the discussion about whether or not his actions were appropriate. So if the only thing you intend to do here is toss around baseless accusations and try to disrupt the discussion, please stay out of this. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is unclear in all of this is that by July 15 four arbitrators had agreed on the workshop page of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence that a 1RR rule applied to Race and intelligence during the ArbCom case. On July 17 Mikemikev made this starting edit.[33] Then about quarter of an hour later this edit. [34] Then five hours later this edit.[35] Captain Occam has been defending Mikemikev here. And David.Kane on WP:AN3 said that Mikemikev's edits were justified by material on pages 234-236 of Mackintosh's book IQ and Human Intelligence. This is what David.Kane wrote on July 20:

Which specific "valid rationales" are you referring to? As best I can tell, Mikemikev wants to include average brain size data by race. Brain size data is discussed extensively by secondary sources, see Mackintosh pages 234-236. Mackintosh even cites (approvingly!) Rushton. As best I can tell, Mikemikev has addressed the arguments raised. It is not clear to me that the editors who argued about this last week remain unconvinced by the subsequent discussion. So, to make progress, we need a list of the editors that, you claim, still object to this edit and the reason(s) that have for objecting.

I have my own copy of that book. The treatment there is not extensive in any sense (1 1/2 pages). It does not contain the statements that Mikemikev inserted. Mackintosh is extremely non-commital about the known correlation between IQ and brain size, indicating that it tells us very little at all. As he writes, "At the end of the day, the establishment of a correlation between brain size and IQ has actually done rather little to advance our knowledge of IQ—let alone g," He also notes that brain size can change as a result of environmental factors (he mentions experiments with rats, not surprisingly since he is an expert on animal behaviour). Mikemikev was aware of the 1RR rule even before all 4 arbitrators voted. He made a failed report on July 7.[36] In view of that, I can't quite see why Captain Occam and David.Kane are supporting Mikemikv; or why in these circumstances Mikemikev has brought this complaint here. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I was really hoping this wouldn’t happen here. Every time anything to do with these articles comes up at AN/I, editors like Mathsci can’t seem to resist dragging in tangential issues which completely cut off the discussion on whatever the original thread was about. And now it looks like the same thing is in danger of happening at this board also.

This thread is about RegentsPark’s actions as an admin—nothing else. I have no opinion about whether or not Mikemikev’s edits were justified, as you might have noticed from the fact that I didn’t participate in the edit war or content argument about them; nor does whether they were justified have anything to do with whether RegentsPark was sufficiently uninvolved to revert them through page protection. So let’s please keep irrelevant issues out of this discussion. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. However, the issue has been in plain view on AN for over three days (a long time here), and all I see is support for RegentsPark. Yet, WP:CPUSH continues ... even the smallest obstacle to establishing a certain POV in race and intelligence must be overcome. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Basket of Puppies has said that he thinks RegentsPark misused his power, and Tariqabjotu seems ambivalent about it. (Not an actual misuse of power, but also a poor choice.) Once I explained what the question was in this thread, the only admin who expressed clear support for RegentsPark was HJ Mitchell. So that’s one opinion in favor of, one against, and one somewhere between the two. I don’t see how you’re getting “nothing but support for RegentsPark” from this.

And as I just said, this discussion has nothing to do with content, or whether Mikemikev’s edits belong in the article. So what does it mean to describe this discussion as indicating that “even the smallest obstacle to establishing a certain POV in race and intelligence must be overcome”? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the view from Basket of Puppies, although it included "So we file it away and hope it was just a momentary lapse of good judgement and move on to more important things." Re your question: are you saying that your interest in this report is purely for the benefit of the encyclopedia, with no regard for your interest in race and intelligence issues? Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It’s a little more specific than that. The reason for I care about this report is because I’m concerned that on articles about especially controversial topics, and this topic in particular, administrators are sometimes allowing their personal opinions to interfere with the neutrality that’s normally expected of them. I care about it in this case in particular because this is the example of it that I’ve been paying closest attention to, but it would bother me if I were observing the same thing happen on any other article. So I guess you could say that my interest in the topic of this article is why I’m paying attention to it in this case, but the reason I actually care about it is just because I’m concerned about admin neutrality in general. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (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.

Harassment

I've not brought this here before because the issue has been handled by various people reverting and the like but after a nest of accounts was blocked on July 2 by Versageek and the IP hardblocked, the user has returned and it's pretty clear that this is likely to see ongoing abuse - hardly a surprise since the behaviour has been going on for a couple of years now but mainly not on Wikipedia.

The person started out using the Usenet nick "Nuxx Bar" and has also used "Guy Cuthbertson" and a number of others. The history is at on my website if anyone wants the background, but it includes crank calls, visits to my house, abusive email, cyberstalking and so on. I don't really want to give the individual any more exposure (I think he craves it) but this is getting really old.

The following is probably not a complete list.

The accounts blocked by Versageek:

• Just zis Lie, you know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zus Guy, you know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zis Guy, u know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zis Guy, ya know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Just zis Guy, y'know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polly Parrothead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Guy Andre Chapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jus zis Guy, you know? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Others:

• Car-Hater Chapman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lou Knee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IPs blocked so far:

• 86.151.152.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.145.66.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.132.248.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.130.81.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.157.102.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.105.168.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 58.168.167.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Latest account:

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

I would like to consider this person as banned, as a formality to facilitate requests for checkuser backup on future socks, and also to encourage any passing admins to block any account or IP that makes comments of the same nature. The style is pretty distinctive, if only due to its extreme lameness. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban. No further comment necessary. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban. Harassment of any sort is flat-out unacceptable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 22:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban. "Visits to your house"? Extra creepy... Doc9871 (talk) 07:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Cripes. Ban and get a restraining order or something. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban. This is definitely the kind of contributor we don't need around here. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support - Easy choice. Off2riorob (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Support not even a question...and agree on restraining order. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 15:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support per above, especially the visits to the house and crank calling. Also agree that a restraining order might be a good idea. Vedant (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban Clearly WP:RBI is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick block review (again)

I blocked Shouko0624 (talk · contribs) after a report at AIV. (Although the block was for edit warring and disruptive editing.) I only blocked for a day, which is standard for the first time offenders. I"m fairly sure the block was appropriate, but I"m not sure about its length. Can a editor more involved in administrator intervention in content disputes take a look? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A review of the most recent 20 and an additional 10 random diffs shows no obvious vandalism. Basket of Puppies 08:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's no obvious vandalism, but there's edit warring over this (which looks to me like some kind of WP:ADVOCACY issue). 24 hours for that seems fine to me. EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef' blocked User:Kurfurst

Resolved

 – Sock blocked by BWilkins TFOWR 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He is attempting to influence a current dispute despite his block [37] in March 2010. Sockpuppeting is not uncommon with him. Can someone block this sock account? Cheers. Dapi89 (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its IP address 84.0.216.230. Dapi89 (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Passed WP:DUCK for me. Should have been reported at WP:ANI as an incident the required quick service. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I am ignorant as to procedure at wiki. Rather embarrassing for an editor of four years. Dapi89 (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, if you'd reported it at ANI some one would have told you it should have gone to WP:SPI ;-) I'd happily see WP:DUCK reports go to ANI (far quicker than creating extra work for the overloaded SPI regulars) but we don't get hung up on procedure, and BWilkins cheerfully blocked the sock despite the wrong venue. TFOWR 12:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the best thing to do about very old subpages of a indefinitely blocked user?

Resolved: Deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Rktect (talk · contribs) had a long history of original research, much of it still around as subpages here [38]. I think it's time for them to go, what's the appropriate method? Mass MfD? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I've not thought of this guy in ages; not surprised that he was indeffed. Seems to me that we could just delete them under IAR; he won't object, and it's not the sort of information that could possibly be kept at MFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DrKiernan, thanks for saving me the work. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou

Resolved: Histories merged. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin lend a hand? Another User apparently unintentionally blanked the page twice, I asked them what they were doing but they didn't respond, so I unblanked and archived the entire page except for the last discussion which was going on. The other User has said they were having computer problems and weren't trying to archive, and asked me to move the archive back to the full page, but I can't do that since to copy and paste would lose the edit history. Could some kind admin please move Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou/Archive 1 back to Talk:Prince Louis, Duke of Anjou? Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonny Doumbouya

Please delete this article, it's vandalism. Polish newspapers wrote about it here: sport.pl. 83.23.252.111 (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me there's enough media coverage to consider keeping the article, though it would likely fail WP:BLP1E... the story here is that a previously non-notable football player created Sonny Doumbouya in an attempt to fool club selectors into granting him a trial. The trial was unsuccessful, and close inspection revealed he'd falsified the Wikipedia article. The Polish press are covering the incident.

The article is currently at AfD. Best to let the AfD run its course, I'd suggest. TFOWR 12:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I know] Poles are evil, but we could urgently do with an evil Pole right now.--Scott Mac 13:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SNOW on WP:COATRACK at AFD

Resolved

 – Closed AFD

[39] Some one please close and Delete it Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Doing... Pedro :  Chat  12:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Pedro :  Chat  12:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of some protections I've made on Balkans articles

I'd like to get some comments as to whether I was right on a few Balkans-related articles I have protected in the past:

• Preveza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Himarë (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gjin Bua Shpata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Napoleon Zervas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dardani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Burrel, Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Greco-Italian War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filiates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I ask because, after taking a second look at the Preveza article, it didn't look like much of an edit war, and I undid the full-protection as a result. I just want to make sure I'm not full-protecting articles due to edit warring when there isn't much of an edit war there.

I have also invited those normally involved in these edit wars to see what they think. –MuZemike 00:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

These were no edit-wars, but were likely to escalate as such with the heated tones of the edit summaries, and MuZemike made a very smart decision of protecting them in order to let people calm down and solve things on the talk page, rather than discuss via edit summaries. I have not seen other admins do that in my 2 years experience in Wikipedia, and I have appreciated MuZemike's preventative approach in not letting an edit-war happen. I also think that his move has mentored many editors involved: rather than adopting a sanction based approach he has given a strong signal and it has worked. --Sulmues ^(talk) 12:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Protections may well be a good short-term measure, but (I think MuZemike will probably agree) the main problem here is the existence of a very persistent travelling circus of four or five editors who keep moving from one disputed article to the next, fighting the same ethnic POV wars. Administrators can hardly put out the edit-warring fires as quickly as these editors find new ones. I reckon it's roughly one new disputed article every two or three days, on average. The disputes mostly are petty, and neither side is systematically better than the other. I really don't know what best to do here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

FPS, I mainly agree with you and I thank you for your support in many content disputes that have arised: I have to admit that southern Albanian articles look much better than Northern Albanian ones because of the Greek editors' contribution there. Whatever the reasons they had to contribute in those articles, the product looks very much presentable. The edits on both sides have produced much better referencing than in other Albania related articles. The Greek editors have better accessibility to sources given that it has been written more in Greece than in Albania concerning some issues: the Albanian side is usually a reacting one, trying to correct certain claims of the Greek side. I admit that it is difficult for an admin to keep up with editing done in the Albanian-Greek articles. We might not have forever FPS to babysit editors, which he has largely done in the past, and another admin might be inexperienced to fully understand the content involved, so I understand FPS's concern. Indeed it's not even easy several times for an admin to fully understand the issue and FPS is the only one probably that has taken the time to analyze them in much detail. An uninvolved admin such as MuZemike, IMO, has operated very well in cooling off many heated discussions and has forced both sides to discuss more in the talk page before any edit-warring occurred. Its actions have produced results without the need of sanctions although some sanctions have been applied in May-June period. I fully welcome the thoughts of user:Alexikoua, with whom I've already exchanged half-barnstars. --Sulmues ^(talk) 18:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A COI editor has posted a request to my talk page about the content of their organisation's article, I don't know how to respond

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dodger67#Movement_for_Justice. It appears to be in connection with this edit - [40] where I reverted the deletion of the introduction to the article. I'm not concerned with the details of the content, just that all articles must have an introduction. Roger (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If they wanted it kept private, they should get it off the Internet. As it is, so long as it is a reliable source, he doesn't get to have a say in its use. Though frankly, it doesn't look like a very notable organization either way, so could just blow up the article and that would solve the issue all together :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Telling me isn't going to help, you need to explain it to User:MiekeDee. He/she doesn't seem to understand that the subject of the article does not own the article. BTW what do you mean by "blow up the article"? Roger (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You asked how to respond, not for someone to respond for you, but it was presumed that MiekeDee would also see my response. However, it doesn't look like he got an ANI notification, so I've left it for him. It also appears he is using IPs to edit, so left notices at the most recent. "Blow up" as in send it off for deletion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Roger (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Erroneously Banned from Editing Religious Topics

Wild Admin Black Kite (t) recently arbitrarily expanded my topic ban to read:

You are banned from making any edit broadly related to race, ethnicity or religion; this includes all pages and talkpages in all namespaces. This ban runs for a period of 6 months (i.e. until 13 January 2011).[41]

When I asked for further clarification as to why I was banned from editing religious subjects, fellow-traveller and topic ban initiator Stonemason89, piped up and said that he personally misconstrued this solitary edit of mine [42] on a talk page into an 'attack on christians' and that that was the reason why I was banned from making edits to religious subjects for six months. I hereby request an immediate unblock. --Wittsun (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this with the Admin in question? Oh, by the way, referring to them a "Wild Admin" probably does not help your situation here ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The rewording of the ban appears to be the result of a discussion at WP:ANI and so was hardly 'arbitrary'. The recent discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627#Wittsun topic ban. The original ban discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Propose Topic Ban. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Making edits like this: [43] won't help Wittsun's case, either. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see no problem with Black Kite's action here, and I endorse it. The edit on that talkpage appears to stir up religious conflict using a derogatory term "christian come-latelies". You were already in trouble due to your insistence that coverage indicating that racism is largely considered immoral must be "balanced out" with coverage saying that racism is a virtue. I would not be surprised if any further disruption results in a full ban from Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

'Come-lately' is historically accurate and at best unflattering. Topic banning me for six months is way out of line. Your synthesis of my position is a misrepresentation. I did not get into the morality or immorality of racial issues. I simply stated that anti-racism is as equally biased, if not more so, than racism per se.--Wittsun (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You were already topic-banned on race, ethnicity and religion for six months ([44]). The only alteration that the re-written topic ban made was to make it clear that the ban extended to all Wikipedia namespaces, not just article and talk. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing the race or ethnicity ban yet. I am disputing the ban on religion.--Wittsun (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I will have another look at the original discussion and your contributions though that may not be until tomorrow now. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the relevant edits, including the one above and [45], I believe that including religion in the topic ban is the simplest method to avoid the system being gamed. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• What kind of reason is this? "The simplest method to avoid the system being gamed?" What system are you referring to? The system Stonemason89 and Co. set up to censor people? Even that edit which was revised is no reason for a six month ban on religious topics.--Wittsun (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Clear endorse After reading a whack of crap, especially included Wittsun's responses inside the WP:AN thread noted above, I cannot help but support Black Kite's actions. Not sure why Wittsun's still allowed 'round here at all after that display. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Clear endorse: "Wild admin" is totally within mandate. You might consider reading WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. N419BH 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Disclosure: I !voted in both threads; however, I endorse Black Kite's action and support a short block of Wittsun for disruption. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I supported the original ban, and endorse this fairly minor change which was adopted via the usual procedure of a discussion at ANI. I still also support blocking Wittsun and am surprised that this hasn't happened. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Black Kite's revisions as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pagemove help

I'll be upfront - pagemove issues leave me bewildered and scared (OK, maybe not scared). Can anyone sort out what happened here? This page has been moved a few times and I'm not sure how to move things back without causing bigger problems. Any assistance is appreciated. TNXMan 11:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• It appears that Materialscientist succeded in moving Kalvakuntla Chandrashekar Rao back to its original location. There is no remaining problem, unless the editor who made the unorthodox page move tries to do it again. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's a remaining problem, but it's for the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock) is backlogged. Would some admins help clear it? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Relaxing or rescinding of community-imposed restrictions on User:Betacommand / Δ. –xeno^talk 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose _{(this is possibly a joke)} Verbal chat 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Close Merge Request

As this is the first time I've set up a merge request I'm asking that an admin close it. (I opened it so I belive it wouldn't be right to close it). It looks like a clear snow close to not merge. It's over here Thansk KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Enigma^msg 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

IP socks

Can someone check (or block :) two IP users that are voting on highly disputed ARBMAC articles. IP editors are suspected socks, as they are only voting, nonconstructive and in POV manner, and they have 0 edits prior discussions and votes. You may see here for more. (User_talk:IJA#ICJ_verdict)

• 92.74.20.221
• 109.84.213.75

For more, i am here. --Tadija^speaks 11:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Logged out users cannot vote in any case. The 92.74 user makes no secret of being a returning user who has consistently trolled Talk:Kosovo since 2008. They are not logged in on purpose, and the purpose is disruptive. Block them or don't block them, but in any case disregard any "votes" these IPs submit. --dab (𒁳) 13:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

the socks are really out tonight... ok, a probable sockmaster is Tubesship (talk · contribs). A recent creation is Popolopos Kikeriki (talk · contribs). Perhaps somebody should run usercheck and flush out the sleepers. --dab (𒁳) 16:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Popolopos Kikeriki" is quite certainly some kind of sock/reincarnation, with clearly a grudge against dab that predates his own existence as an account. I would have blocked him, if it wasn't for the fact I just began to engage in a content discussion on the same page. Can somebody please step in? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Popo, will look at IPs now. Enigma^msg 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a second. What evidence do you have to block people in such cases? The user edited two pages, a high-profile talk page related to current events and his own userpage. Socking or not (kinda hard to tell from a dozen of edits), his issue with dab's flagrant abuse of the talk page is IMO legitimate and not particularly original to serve as a proof of anything (dab's kindly piss off (unintentionally ironic as concerns unfounded accusations), Kosovo is currently "under the auspices" of an unholy alliance of the Pristina government, the UN, the EU and organized crime", "If the UN and EU forces would withdraw, the whole thing would probably just devolve into anarchy are unsourced inflammatory speculations and personal attacks, definitely not what talk pages under probation are for. And now pointing this out constitutes a grudge against dab? Count me in then). Colchicum (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to make any comments on Popolopos' or dab's behavior, I am wondering how come Tubesship chose to sock himself, when he is not currently blocked. --Sulmues ^(talk) 23:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User page as calendar

Resolved

It seems that User:Huangrenjie is used as a calendar or notebook of sorts, which may explain the odd IP edits I've reverted a few times. User has made no edits other than to the user page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...and, errr...did you ask them about it directly first? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm here to ask if that's OK, Bwilkins. That they are using it as a calendar is pretty obvious. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll head on over and ask them why ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

...and done. If we don't tell someone the rules, how will they ever know? They'd not even been welcomed yet. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if they know that page is world-readable. –xeno^talk 20:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the page. Fences&Windows 23:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at CAT:SD - articles tagged as copyright violations

Resolved

Could someone take a look at the backlog of articles tagged as copyright violations? It's not an area with which I'm comfortable. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban of abusive user (User:Yattum)

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.

Yattum is banned by community consensus. Courcelles (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

---

As posted on ANI here

User:Yattum who has been indefinitely blocked is an abusive troll who has consistently been reverting my edits. He has threatened to take legal action against me as I have been reverting his anonymous edits (after his indefinite block). In addition, he has wiki-stalked me and has engaged in extremely offensive personal attacks such as this. He has then posted defamatory material on numerous user pages such as this, this and this. In addition, a sockpuppet of his launched a frivolous SPI investigation into me. As such, given that this user is extremely abusive, I was wondering if a) the community would consider a ban against the user and b) a rangeblock to prevent further account creation and disruption. Vedant (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

A ban won't really help you here - everyone's aware of the incident and reverting and blocking IPs as they abuse.

What we can do - and I just did - is to put a moderate time (1 week) block on 88.106.0.0/16 and see if they give up and go away.

If not, we can rangeblock for longer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm aware that we are reverting the IPs edits. What I wanted to do here was propose a community ban on the user (I have struck-out the rangeblock request). Vedant (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Determined wikistalkers should be shown the door. Plus, as has been said before, a ban will allow editors to revert the socks edits without running afoul of 3RR. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've certainly seen editors banned for legal threats like this (esp. when coupled w/an indefinite block for socking) Maybe a "year-ban" is appropriate, if it's proven? Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support simple block - It's an IP, simple policy violation. Block for 6 months - 2 years. Shadowjams (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Wikipedia cannot continue to allow "AGF" to enable such stalking and harassment, or continue giving such people just "one more" chance. It is complete hell for the victims, and only serves to lower the pool of good editors here when it is the victim, not the stalker, who ends up having to leave to get peace. Coupled with the defamation and socking, this guy needs to be shown the door permanently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Per, edit warring, threats of legal action, socking, personal attacks, and wikistalking. --GabeMc (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - We've planted a size-12 sole on other users' asses for far less than what's going on here. Stalking another user is not a "simple policy violation"; if it were then users wouldn't be routinely banned for it. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban - per above --Rockstonetalk to me! 05:38, 27 July 2010 (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.

"British Isles"

There was recently a discussion at ANI around disruption caused by adding or removing the term "British Isles" on a systematic basis. As a result, Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log was established to log topic bans against editors who engage in this behaviour. A process exists at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples to debate proposals to add or remove the term "British Isles", and this process has, by and large, been working very well. Black Kite and myself have been monitoring the process and logging and enforcing topic bans.

Black Kite is currently on holiday until 7th August, and I am about to go on holiday until - you guessed it - 7th August.

Could I ask for one or two volunteers to keep an eye on things until we both return? (Hey, if you'd like to get involved for longer that would be more than welcome...!)

Other than keeping an eye on Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples the process is fairly straightforward - the editors themselves are quite good about self-policing, and will report problems either directly to you or at the "Specific Examples" page or the probation log's talkpage.

Thanks in advance! TFOWR 14:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Close a TFD or two?

We have a bit of backlog at WP:TFD. If any admin would like to help out by closing one or two of the discussions from July 11, July 12, July 15, July 16, or July 17. To close one, you just follow these instructions. If they need to be carefully orphaned, converted, or otherwise processed, just drop a link to the template in WP:TFD/H, and someone will help finish it off. If they need to be relisted, just move the discussion to the current days page and place a {{subst:relist}} at the bottom of the discussion. Let me know if you need any help or have any questions. Thanks in advance! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Which tool?

Sorry, but I cannot recall the tool used to track visits to a page for a month/year. As well, where can one see a list of these tools? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Is http://stats.grok.se/ what you are looking for? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It surely was. Thanks. Is there a single site where these tools are arrayed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TOOLS is a good place to start.--SPhilbrickT 19:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Personnel changes - Audit Subcommittee

The Arbitration Committee accepts, with regret, the resignation of Tznkai (talk · contribs) as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, effective immediately. Tznkai has been a community representative on the AUSC since its creation in 2009, first as an interim appointee and subsequently as a community-elected representative. As well, he has been a long-time Arbitration Clerk, and has been active in arbitration enforcement. We thank Tznkai for his services, and wish him well in his future endeavours, with the hope that he may return to be an active Wikipedian at some point in the future.

Further to the AUSC appointment announcements of November 2009, MBisanz (talk · contribs) is appointed to fill the remainder of Tznkai's term on the Audit Subcommittee.

In addition, arbitrator KnightLago will be filling the slot now vacant as Kirill Lokshin has come to the end of his term on the AUSC, and SirFozzie has agreed to extend his term to December 31, 2010.

The Arbitration Committee, in consultation with the community and with past and present members of the Audit Subcommittee, will be reviewing the activities and processes of the AUSC through its first year, to identify what improvements can be made. This review will be completed by October 10, prior to the next scheduled round of elections for community representatives to the subcommittee.

For the Arbitration Committee,

NW (Talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Armoboy323

Can someone please have a look at the results of this SPI request: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Armoboy323. An administrative action is required with regard to the block evasion by the banned user. Grandmaster 05:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

769 dead links to the US State Department

Sometime before January 21, 2010, the US State Department changed its website address from usinfo.state.gov to america.gov without providing any sort of redirection for existing links. That change broke all citations to usinfo.state.gov. They are still broken.

The situation was reported at EAR here. An EAR editor confirmed the problem and reported it to WikiProject United States Government here. Trying to follow a citation today, I discovered it still exists.

A Linksummary shows ~769 links to usinfo.state.gov, all of them broken. Clicking on any returns server not found.

usinfo.state.gov: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I don't have any bright ideas, but I think this should be addressed. I'll volunteer to fix a couple of dozen (it's not a one-for-one fix, things have moved around) if a project is set up. Interestingly, we have more of these now than we did in January. --CliffC (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate you raising this issue, there isn't anything administrators particularly can do about this. You might have more luck raising the issue at the technical village pump or filing a bot request to fix the deadlinks in batches. Regards, Skomorokh 22:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If things have moved around in a predictable way, it could be a job for Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks. Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the new addresses are unpredictable – in the sample I checked, plugging 'america.gov' into the url gets you to the State Department (motto: Engaging the world"), where a catch-all message says "The Page You Are Looking for Has Moved. This Web site has been redesigned and restructured, and the page you are looking for may no longer be available." If a bot did anything, I suppose it could substitute the 'america.gov' and flag the citation 'failed verification' to get the attention of regular editors of the affected articles. I'll ask the folks at the village pump to take a look. --CliffC (talk)

As a general approach, find the broken url, identify when it was cited (this may require digging back through version history), search archive.org for the old url. Find the archived version just before the date cited. Open that archived url. Search for that first sentence on the new domain, e.g. this, and compare what it finds to the archived version. Per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, cite the archived version and tag the cite with {{update}} and a comment to help editors link to the new one once they can verify that it still supports the statements for which it is cited. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DrV

DrV has a very old discussion which needs to be closed. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – J04n(talk page) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, actually you closed something that did need closing but I was referring to [46]. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed and salted for a week due to some post close foolishness from a sock. Protonk (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

173.58.164.11 (talk · contribs)

block 173.58.164.11 (talk · contribs) --Olli (talk) 07:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, although WP:AIV is the best place to post such a request.  Frank  |  talk  07:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

South Kyrgyzstan

This afternoon user MushtumAzho (talk · contribs), posted an article copied from a blog about the ethnic violence in South Kyrgyzstan, which was said to be the first of a series whose "aim is to prove that in our country Kyrgyzstan, there hasn’t been genocide or such actions towards any minority ethnic groups including Uzbeks." I speedy-deleted it as an attack page (it included allegations that the the violence was prepared and initiated by the Uzbeks - it was also speediable as a copyvio). I also explained to the author why it was unacceptable. I mention it here in case we get complaints of censorship, and also to ask people to watchlist 2010 Kyrgyzstan crisis and 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots, because if a campaign is being mounted they may come under attack. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent adding of copyrighted material by Patrignani090

I hope this is a right place for the issue at hand. User:Patrignani090 has a history of uploading copyrighted images of Slovenia and claiming them under public domain. He has been warned repeatedly about it (see his talk page) and had the uploads deleted, I even wrote him a note in Slovenian asking him to stop, to no avail. "His" recent contributions include File:Bledd.jpg and File:Apaskopolje perspektiva.jpg, both from websites with clear copyright notices. I can't tell whether his actions are in good faith, but I doubt he could miss or fail to understand all the notices. Because I don't expect him to stop if I just remind him again (and I don't have energy for that anymore), I would like an administrator to give him a more stern warning and keep an eye on his future uploads. — Yerpo ^Eh? 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This kind of thing usually goes at WP:ANI. I'm looking into it and have given him a block caution. Thank you very much for keeping an eye on it. Even if you've lost energy, I would appreciate it if you would drop me a note at my talk page should you see him doing it again, and I will follow up. Alternatively, a report at ANI would also probably bring action, now that he has been clearly warned of a potential block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment:

The Arbitration Committee provisions for the unbanning of Betacommand are amended as follows: Betacommand (talk · contribs), now editing as Δ (talk · contribs), is authorized to operate a single secondary account, Δbot (talk · contribs), only to perform automated tasks directly related to the clerking of sockpuppet investigations only as specified and authorized by the Bot Approvals Group. Any other use of the bot, broadly interpreted, must be specifically authorized in advance by BAG and endorsed by ArbCom.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 07:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

• I think this should be revisted as I do believe ArbCom has made a big mistake. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Any discussion should occur at the place designated by the "Discuss this" link above, not here.  Sandstein  09:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal (User: NatDemUK)

NatDemUK (talk · contribs)

User: NatDemUK has expressed some very disturbing views on Wikipedia, both on his own userpage and in other namespaces. Other users, including Fourdee and Jerry Jones, have been banned in the past for expressing similar sentiments, due to the fact that most Wikipedians find such views offensive and disruptive, as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Examples of NatDemUK's unacceptable behavior include: [47], [48] (in which he claims that Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic), [49], [50] (saying Stormfront has "no official ideology", which is obviously false), [51], [52] (spamming Pantheism with an unrelated article by a neo-Nazi author), [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], and [58]. In addition, he has been blocked twice already and his behavior has not stopped. Therefore, I am proposing a ban for User: NatDemUK. Feel free to post any supports/opposes below. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - This should be a no-brainer. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - Neutral but willing to support conditioned on evidence that this edit history is disruptive. I will switch to support if there are violations of policy here, but to be clear, I do not support blocking editors on the basis of their personal views, however personally repulsive. Shadowjams (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of evidence that he's been disruptive and has been violating policy; see AmnaFinotera's post below, which presents evidence that NatDem has been making death threats and using socks to edit-war. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

*Neutral - as per Shadowjams. Off2riorob (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't support users voting to get rid of people with polital views they are oposed to. Off2riorob (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — this ban proposal appears to be motivated by the user's opinions. There's no good reason to ban based on opinions alone, and I don't see enough reason here to ban for the edits. For three examples:
  • I don't see why you cite this edit as evidence — yes, it's not sourced, but you're not trying to get him banned for simple unsourced additions.
    • Well, "mass immigration" is a buzzword usually used by far-right extremists. I can't think of any mainstream political figures using the term. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit that you cite is good except for the summary: the article doesn't say anything about neo-Naziism, so he shouldn't have been in the category or had that see also link.
    • The uncivil edit summary is the reason I cited this edit as evidence. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This edit that you cite is likewise not a content problem; sexual orientation and ethnicity are totally different issues. Nyttend (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, read the edit summary; using the term "abnormal" to refer to LGBT people is not the kind of behavior we want to see. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral Weak Support - while I personally find his views appalling that is not a reason to ban. However, he has shown some civility issues, I'm not entire sure that he has "exhausted the community patience" at this point. He only has two blocks, both for edit warring and the latter for a threat that was apparently never redacted.[59] I also don't see any evidence of previous ANI threads about him. Inclined to support a topic ban and, if violated, increasing blocks. If he does any more threats like the one above, or gross incivility, also increasing blocks. However, I am also curious/concerned that this editor is also operating as an IP to edit war, from his seemingly random "first comment" in May 09 telling someone to "Will you fuck off????? How many more times??? Andrew Brons DOES NOT believe in Nazism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"[60] He had never edited that article before, however in the days proceeding it, 194.80.178.253 (talk · contribs) had been edit warring over the same issue[61][62][63][64] then again after NatDemUK made a second revert.[65] This IP is currently on a 3 month block, and has three more blocks to his name[66]. If NatDemUK is still using that IP, it would seem to be a far larger case of disruption. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to weak support after seeing evidence of a second death-type threat. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed to full support after his response to this discussion[67] which seems to show he does know he is in the wrong and doesn't care...instead he went on the attack spewing out more unnecessary diatribes and hateful speech. At this point, it seems clear he is far too poisonous a person who work within a community environment.-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral Neutral toward ban, Support indefinite block: We usually don't ban based on personal beliefs alone. We might be able to speedy his userpage as an attack page though. As for an actual ban, we would have to base it on violation of policy, and though I see edit warring I don't see enough to justify a ban. N419BH 16:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Moving to support indef. block: His beliefs are his and we usually don't ban for those. His approach however violates several Wikipedia policies: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and it is time to prevent further disruption. N419BH 01:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: I would be delighted never to encounter such views, but we should not be banning people merely for their opinions, if they are able express them in a non-disruptive way, and to edit broadly in accordance with policy. Rd232 ^talk 16:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, he's been expressing his views in a very disruptive way (as the diffs show), and has violated editing policies quite a few times. Generally, most people with strong ethnic or racial biases tend to have little to no respect for policy; while it's theoretically possible with someone with views like Fourdee's or NatDemUK's could edit non-disruptively and in accordance with policy, in practice it almost never happens. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose at this time (based on wiki norms and not his beliefs) I dealt with a chunk of this user's writings and gave him a clear talk page explanation of the problem and site/community editing expectations on 12 July link. He hasn't edited in the 12 days since. I'm not seeing any current activity requiring a ban, nor any evidence of edits to show he has continued to ignore editing norms. The diffs above are indeed a concern but they are old and predate the warning. If he returns and restarts these issues then deal with it then, and I would probably endorse. Either way he now has the expectations set out for him and has his chance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- No editor should ever be restricted, blocked, or banned from Wiki based on their personal belief system. In this case there are some clear examples of civility issues, edit warring and arguably, disruption. In this example here [68], the user appears to be advocating murder, and here [69], the user apparently threatens an editor with assault/attempted murder over a revision disagreement. These behaviors need to be addressed immediately, but not via a community ban based on the user's political beliefs, IMHO. --GabeMc (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, if he has been making death threats, isn't that in and of itself grounds for issuing a ban? Also, as AmnaFinotera pointed out, NatDemUK has been using socks to edit-war, as well. Both of these are clear policy violations which seem to justify banning, even if the user's views don't (although I stand by my original view that there is a precendent for banning people with particularly extreme views, as was established during the Fourdee case). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Weak Support - I agree with GabeMc that we shouldn't be punishing a user based on their personal beliefs or opinions (regardless of how prejudicial they may be). While I personally find his views appalling, I don't think it's anyone's place to ban a person simply based on their views. However, given that the user has been using socks to edit-war and has made death threats, I support a ban of this user. Furthermore, it should be made clear that this user is not being banned for his personal opinions but for his repeated violation/disregard of WP policy. Vedant (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: the user is, quite simply, a braindead idiot (and I'm sorry to offend three major newspapers and one and a half million people, but anyone who supports the BNP or UKIP is), but we don't block people for being braindead idiots. However, giving that he's advocating mass murder, and threatening violence on another user, can someone explain why he hasn't been blocked? Sceptre ^(talk) 04:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have. But to sum up, because Wikipedia gets written by people of all views, and even someone with extreme views should be told how we work before assuming they can't or won't. Since having that clear explanation about 2 weeks ago (politely, courteously, supportively, and without threats or incivility) NatDemUK actually hasn't edited. If he returned showing he has learned nothing that's one thing. But banning him for actions several weeks ago, with a warning 2 weeks ago and no misconduct since is assuming too much negatively (AGF doesn't mean giving endless chances, it means until you see otherwise, assume they may have good intentions as an editor or not know better). It may of course be that he does need a ban, but at this time it's premature and against community norms. Normal criteria and ways of thinking for warnings, blocks, and bans still apply exactly as normal. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between an "extreme view" and believing that homosexuals, liberals, socialists, communists (including the Tories, I bet), Jews, atheists should be, and I quote, "be annihilated for their beliefs" and saying "their heads will be cut off". This kind of shit brings the project into disrepute, and, fuck, we've blocked paedophiles for less. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're unanimous here on the emotional feeling about these kinds of statements. But by the same token the question I'm asking myself is, did he have much likelihood of knowing there was a policy of "leave it outside please"; did he know he could be blocked if he didn't; did he have it explained that he needs to work here even with people in real life he loathes - as they need to with him? I don't see it being categorically clear that he was told this. That's one issue.

The other is our own community norms, we don't block and ban people for old stuff - and this is old here. He had a warning a fortnight ago and hasn't tried to repeat since or fight it. We have no way to tell if he may come back angry, come back accepting our norms, or not come back, because it's the 1st proper explanation and warning we can be sure he has had, setting out what he needs to know.

That - the prematurity by our own norms and not any acceptance of his view - is the reason for opposing a ban at this time. I view him no different in wiki terms to a POV pusher on any other topic, making edits some of which are biased and speaking inappropriately of other editors. If he learns, good, if not, bye bye is likely. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per the concerns raised above. -Oescp (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Per FT2, extremely reluctant Oppose, with an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Any repeat of their prior "bad behaviour" (fuck it: racist, fascist crap) should be met with an immediate and permanent ban. TFOWR 09:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

  Moving to neutral, considering support: editor has resumed editing and shows no sign of having taken on board the very real concerns raised here. TFOWR 07:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Per these statements on his user page. People that threaten to kill other people because they politically disagree with them has no place on Wikipedia, regardless of their ideologies. Seems pretty straightforward to me. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Ugh, oddly opposed Perhaps the most unfortunate belief system ever to have evolved out of Africa 50000 years ago, in that they have clearly forgotten where they came from. As they have not made specific threats, it's a challenge for us to ban them for merely being wrong-headed. However, any entry/edit to Wikipedia that is directly racist, violation of WP:NPA, WP:EW, etc must be met swiftly, and with escalating blocks as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't edit war. Don't make threats. I will vote to kick you out of that continues. Anthony (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry, what?? I don't see why the other diffs have been raised, but surely this one (not the precise diff, of course, but the material removed, which the history shows the user to have previously added) should warrant an automatic goodbye? Are we saying that "advocating inappropriate adult-child relationships" gets anyone banned without any further debate, but advocating the murder of half the people in the community is worth no more than a ticking off? Somehow WP's got to sort its policy out over these issues.--Kotniski (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently I'm missing something, but I see nothing in that disgusting rant that advocates pedophilia at all (may be the only thing he didn't harp on but still). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Kotniski was claiming that NatDemUK supported pedophilia. Rather, he was pointing out that from his perspective, it seems hypocritical for Wikipedia to automatically ban other users who do advocate pedophilia (which the Child Protection policy mandates), while not doing likewise for users, like NatDemUK, who advocate mass murder. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that is indeed exactly what I was trying to say.--Kotniski (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Ah, you're right, I read that too fast, and while the community did not actually pass WP:CP, that rant (which was removed) does appear to be his second death threat. Though not specific, it does certainly adds a new light to thinks, and death threats in general are not acceptable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose(also very reluctantly). Per Bwilkins (and others). Indefinite block before a site ban: two prior blocks (however horrific some edits may be) don't justify an outright ban. Yet? If socks come out: maybe a ban. Clean up your act, dude... Doc9871 (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban Threatening to kill someone because of politics should be enough to get rid of them. Also, he's vandalized pages before --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This user has not threatened to kill anyone. A threat is a specific statement of intention to take a specific course of action. What this user has done is spew a particular ideology. Offensive as I find it, I don't think the user should be banned for it. Blocks for specific behavior are appropriate. Trolls like this typically lose their energy for confrontation pretty quickly. If there comes a point in time that multiple or repeated blocks become necessary, the issue can be revisited.BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• "This user has not threatened to kill anyone. A threat is a specific statement of intention to take a specific course of action." Here [70], the user says, "Their heads will be cut off", and here [71], "get rid of those categories NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR ELSE I'LL SLICE YA!!". Sounds pretty specific to me. --GabeMc (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Whose heads? There is no specific target person mentioned in the first link, nor does User:NatDemUK state his intentions to do anything. The second link refers to getting rid of categories, not people. Offensive, yes. Threat, no. Any similar comments in the last two weeks? No. Does this require an urgent ban? No. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree: I can't see how the first diff is a death threat to anyone specific: looks like misguided "hate speech" against a very wide variety of "groups" instead. The second diff is way more troubling, but he was blocked for it for a week. I don't think anyone is really defending his behavior, and I agree with Exxolon's comment below concerning his future. Even this creep (whom I'm sure the good admin who appropriately blocked both him and NatDemUK remembers) is only blocked indefinitely and not banned. Those are serious threats... Doc9871 (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

@ BartlebytheScrivener, "Whose heads?", the diff includes a list of "whose heads", [72]. @ Doc9871, making threats toward an individual is no more serious then making threats towards groups of people, a threat of de-capitation is a threat, whether about one, or many victims. --GabeMc (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • I've been around the internet for long enough to know an empty threat when I see it, despite the above guy being physically less than 100 miles away; however, I am still relatively comfortable where I am, and since February, since those threats were issued, nothing has happened. It's all too easy to be a bully or a coward on the net, since responsibility is at best deferred, if not avoided. If he had been other than shouting, I might have been worried, but as it happens, I'm not, and am just getting on with things. Rodhullandemu 23:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, Rod: I find it pretty disturbing and won't soon forget seeing that post on your page. @GabeMc - NatDemUK doesn't say he will cut their heads off, just that they "will" be cut off. By who? He doesn't seem to specify. I would think he means he feels that (for whatever reason) these people deserve to have their heads cut off. It seems like an extremely vague threat to me... Doc9871 (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Based on nothing but assumption, I would guess 99% of threats made on Wikipedia, which resulted in bans, was probably empty, but it still does not make it acceptable behaviour.

--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and such threats are so poisonous to collaborative editing that they they should result in immediate blocks, and implied bans, without any argument whatsoever. In the current case, much as as NatDemUK is a WP:SPA with an axe to grind, he has failed, in my view, to regard our editing policies as non-negotiable. My experience of him tells me that he has been told on numerous occasions of those, and has significantly failed to understand neutrality policy, and that is without the abuse of other editors. He should go, and with extreme prejudice. Rodhullandemu 23:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - as someone this user thinks is a "Sub-degenerate freak", "vermin", "shite-head" who "must be annihilated" and my "head(s) will be cut off" I'm finding it hard to assume good faith here. However I do believe that all political viewpoints are welcome. NatDemUK should be under no illusions - if he can edit within policy and interact civilly with other editors even if he does not personally approve of them then there's a place for him here. If he can't then the door is that way. Personally I'm not optimistic based on his previous user page at [73]. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This user seems to be quite disruptive and not especially interested in collaboration. I have a hard time assuming good faith in someone who threatens violence against other editors. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - "A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." WP:CIVILITY --GabeMc (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note - Whether or not NatDemUK would reciprocate the, "As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." is certainly debatable. I've notified him of this report nonetheless. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know; sorry I didn't do it myself, but I was unaware at the time that the user-notification policy applied to ban discussions. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • No problem! I don't believe it's policy, but it is a courtesy at the very least (as it says at the top of the page). This could have been very different if the user knew about it from the beginning. His response has already swayed opinions in just a few short minutes (and will continue to, I'm sure). Cheers, Stonemason89! :> Doc9871 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• DEEPLY Oppose Hi everyone, given that you thought that you could waste your time stalking me, let us get some things right. Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic because it is not incitement of hatred to Jews, it is just denial of a historical event. Stormfront has no official ideology, it is a forum for European people where you can discuss anything you want and disagree with whichever you want and Cosmotheism, the beliefs of William Pierce, are based on pantheism. You are all very repulsive in what you have done, I have cause no problems at all, you are a horrible bunch of ignorant liberals who ought to be a damn shamed of yourself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I agree with Doc9871 above, "Indefinite block before a site ban: two prior blocks don't justify an outright ban." After appropriate blocks, user must commit to not breaking WP:CIVIL, WP:DISRUPT, WP:WAR, WP:SOCK, or WP:SOAPBOX. --GabeMc (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget WP:NPA, of course. ;> If it's shown he has been socking (as is alleged), I'm for an immediate longer-term block... Doc9871 (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Support - This user has had serious disruptive editing and has exhausted all of the community's patience with his incivil comments and his soapboxing. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are far more disruptive and arrogant that you cannot bear free speech or thought at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatDemUK (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia:Free speech - we do not have the right to unlimited free speech here. Exxolon (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, NatDemUK, please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as well as Wikipedia:No personal attacks - we also do not tolerate such things like that on Wikipedia. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. No soapboxing, kthx. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Not for his views which, while reprehensible, shouldn't get him blocked alone. I suport based on the flagrant Personal Attacks repeatedly made by the user; their combatative stance that goes against out core policies; his blatant lack of WP:NPOV; and things like WP:SOAPBOX to boot. 05:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs)

You do mean "shouldn't get him banned alone", right? This is about banning him, not blocking him[74]. "Spellcheck" helps, too, my brother... Doc9871 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Signing. Signing helps, too, Skinny87. ;-) TFOWR 07:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, oops. My bad, apologies. I do indeed mean 'banned' and not 'blocked' as per Doc9871. I'll be more careful with my spelling next time as well :) Skinny87 (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support Stuff like this alone goes greatly beyond the limits of what's acceptable (these aren't 'political views'; they're hate crimes in many parts of the world). The other diffs provided above and the current content of their user page make it plain that this editor is here primarily to push their political views and hasn't responded to warnings against this behavior. This would justify a ban on NPOV grounds alone even if the views weren't politically extreme and included threats of violence. Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy hadn't made an edit (I see no SPI attachment) since July 17. He was not notified of this report (filed on the 23rd), and made exactly one edit two days later: then he was notified and clearly responded. This goes beyond him or his opinions (as I see it). Everyone's supposed to get a fair trial, right? It's about proper procedure: that's more important than individual editors. We're going to hang him... and then kill him? His second block was for one week. How is a longer block not preferable to a ban? I'm not thinking that the "bigger picture" is being seen by many on this one... Doc9871 (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it hilarious though that the phrasing of his own !vote in this thread probably did more harm to his "case" than anything else. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably? At least our heads are still firmly attached to our necks. Definitely don't want to see a "railroading" here, though. BTW, I am an "ignorant liberal": don't want to know much about liberalism. But that's just me... Doc9871 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ban for now but support longer block like indefinite. Let him work on some of the other projects to show he can follow policies and guidelines then it can be rethought to see if he should be unblocked. So far the editor doesn't seem to be 'getting' what editors are saying to him yet, as can be seen with his last comments. I am also having a difficult time with not saying ban after reading the difs and his user page. Another thing, if it hasn't been done yet, someone needs to rev delete the history of his user page with the stuff that was removed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the user under discussion is not blocked in any way and is as such presently free to contribute to the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I worded my comment too clumsy. I mean I support a longer block than the user has already received in the past including an indefinte block. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Ban or Indef block - There are two things the Wikipedia community has shown they will not tolerate. One is pedophilia, the other is racism. Denying Stormfront is a racist organization is absurd on its very face, and comments about killing people (even general groups) are disruptive & poisonous to a collaborative atmosphere. Until NatDemUK retracts his violent comments, I support a ban or indef bock of the account. He can have his opinion on Stormfront, but calling for beheadings is over-the-top. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a block but not an indefinite one nor a ban. The user's activity is disruptive, but I'm concerned too many of the ban supports are reacting to personal views rather than substantive edits. Again, to be clear, I have no sympathy for this user's political views, but I would abandon my own to let that fact alone govern his/her ability to edit. Disruption is a valid reason, but personal politics are not. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a single support that states it is based on a reaction to his personal views. Quite the opposite in fact, as most editors who support quite clearly states that their vote is not based on his political views. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Nobody would make that statement. Nor am I saying that a specific person is making that judgment, but the overall approach to me appears to be premised on that point, hence my opinion above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Shadowjams. While no support states it is based on his beliefs, the original intent of the ban proposal does seem to be an attempt to ban him based on his politics and views, and as such, I cannot support a community ban based on this proposal. User must agree to apologize for his threats and remarks, refrain from such activites in the future, and to remove the offensive material from his user page, if it remains. As far as a user block is concerned, I believe that should be a separate decision not based on the comments made here. — GabeMc (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unless there are clear signs that s/he will moderate the language and clean up their use page to remove the offensive material. The oppose statement from the editor above gives little hope that this will happen --Snowded ^TALK 09:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose ban for now. I've looked through his recent edits, and although many of them are unhelpful, I don't see much that's actually ban-worthy. Yes, his views are offensive to many, but for the most part he kept them to his userpage (from where the most offensive parts have been removed) rather than putting them into articles - looking at his article edits, I get the impression he's been trying to comply with WP:NPOV, albeit not entirely successfully. The threats of violence and personal attacks on other users (this sort of thing:[75]) are more problematic, but he has been warned and blocked for them already. If he hasn't got the message yet, this discussion should make it clear. I say let him continue editing, but keep a closer eye on him - now he knows that personal attacks and soapboxing are wrong, he's got no excuses. If he returns to such behaviour, then he can be blocked or banned as appropriate (under WP:Competence is required), but if he avoids it and makes helpful edits - as a few of his were - then let him be. Robofish (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: his worst (i.e. potentially ban-worthy) contributions are not his most recent, and he does appear to be trying to work within Wikipedia's policies. As Robofish alludes to, if and when he returns to saying he's going to kill people, then talk about a long block or ban. Buddy431 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Just found this discussion - blocks or bans based on personal opinions or positions are generally a "bad idea." Collect (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose close

If there is any consensus to emerge from the above, it is that a user's views should not be a primary basis for a ban, and that this user's recent actions (after warnings) do not justify a ban (yet). It is probably time to close this nearly week-long discussion (where views and actions have got unhelpfully mixed together), and start a new one if and when necessary (i.e. if the user becomes sufficiently disruptive). Any new discussion, if it proves necessary, should focus on actions. Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Support closure, someone should write a summary of the general feeling here and clearly convey the concerns raised here and the consequences for his wiki career if he steps over the line. Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first part (to an extent), but not the second part. Most people who oppose the ban, I don't think, are aware of the "kill 95% of the population" spiel that was on his user page. Even so, there are more people in favour of a ban than not. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I did oppose the ban, and I was aware of the spiel. At the time I opposed (I've since moved to neutral) I took the view that the editor was a new editor, probably unaware of the community's norms. (I've since moved to neutral because the editor resumed editing, posted here, and is now clearly aware of the standards required by the community). I'd support a ban only if the editor repeated a threat. I do not believe a ban decision should be made on beliefs or views; rather, it should be made on threats - threats made after the editor was made aware of the community's requirements for collegial editing. TFOWR 10:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise is possible (i. e. an indef block, or a topic ban, but not a full ban)? Stonemason89 (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote for a topic ban for sure. A month block to start the next time he screws up with escalating blocks as necessary. If the very next edit (still waiting...) is offensive enough: instant indef. A community ban? Note that he hasn't even edited since this, and his comments on this very board didn't get him blocked for a millisecond. Remarkable restraint for an editor whose past alone is "catching up to him" and is to be banned for it. Whatever... Doc9871 (talk) 06:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have thirteen opposed...and eighteen support and a few neutrals, it is a bit split imo. and absolutely not a reason to block him ban him or anything imo either. The guys not even editing and will be quite free to simply create himself another account and edit away.Off2riorob (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"He's not even editing" is not correct; NatDemUK made three edits just today (July 30). Also, "if we block/ban him he will just create another account" is not a legitimate reason to avoid blocking/banning someone; if he creates socks we can always report them as socks, and there are ways of dealing with editors who sockfarm. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from ,, I don't like his opinions there is no good reason to do anything to him at all. Also as as I said, there is no clear consensus here to do anything either. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The four edits for 30 July seem pretty, well, "benign". He's still editing... is he being disruptive at all with these edits? There is no proof of socking linked to this thread that I can see. He's not currently blocked. A ban is the next step... (?) Doc9871 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the community has made their concerns about previous actions fairly clear, the editor has seen those concerns, and the editor's recent edits have been productive. I feel it's safe to say that the editor realises now that repeating previous threats would not be good, and would result in a swift and final response (whether that be a block, a block-followed-by-ban, or whatever). Blocks are preventative, not punitive. At this stage blocking isn't on. A ban doesn't seem justified. Demanding an apology or some sort of commitment as to future editing is likely to be as successful as demands for such things usually are (i.e. not very). What say we all drop this and move on, returning to it if/when the editor gives us cause for concern in the future? TFOWR 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification of users about posts on this board

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

Some time ago I spearheaded a change in policy at WP:ANI requiring notifying editors you post about. Currently ANI has a big header when you edit saying "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." - NatDemUK above was not notified about the ban discussion until considerable discussion had occurred. I move that we apply the same rule here as ANI - "You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." and create the appropiate template - as I said at the original discussion, talking behind someone's back really isn't cricket - if someone's conduct is serious enough to warrant a post here they deserve to be informed so they can defend themselves. Exxolon (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 100% Support. Same is true at Wikiquette alerts: "Notify the reported user(s). Place a short and polite statement on their talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved. You may wish to use the template {{subst:WQA-notice}} on a user's talk page."; and the 3RR board, "When reporting a user here, inform them of this, possibly in conjunction with the {{uw-3RR}} warning template." This is not asked with a "please": it's instructed. Why this is a "courtesy" here (and not the other "serious" boards) is a bit odd. Good call, Exxolon... Doc9871 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unless there's some exceptionally good reason I'm not aware of - support. Kind of surprised this isn't the case already: shows how much attention I pay to edit notices ;-) TFOWR 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Seems sensible (though there already is a note at the top of this page stating that "As a courtesy, please inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." - which I guess makes this a pretty minor change) Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support in principle, though one might argue that ban discussions should take place on ANI and therefore the notification requirements there would cover making sure people were notified. AN in principle, as I understand it, is more for announcements or things that you wish to inform the other administrators about that require no action. ANI should be for things that require action by an administrator. Syrthiss (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that for sure. But, these things are very often not moved appropriately to AN/I. That's another problem... Doc9871 (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My worry is that such a notice will encourage people to think this is an appropriate board to discuss problems with other editors. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well the board is sometimes used for that purpose, regardless of it's intent. We can certainly tweak the notification warning to encourage posting elsewhere, but if someone chooses to post here anyway, the other party(ies) should be informed. Exxolon (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is useless red tape. This is the board for addressing administrators. Only use it if you think your problem has any bearing on Wikipedia administration. We can note that it is considered a courtesy to notify users, but I don't see how this is really relevant. I was mentioned here many times without anyone telling me, and if it was anything I needed to know about, I was invariably notified by somebody else. As long as it isn't something I need to know about, I don't see why I should be notified. --dab (𒁳) 13:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your personal experiences notwithstanding, this board is sometimes used for things that fall outside it's strict remit. Since threads on this board can and do lead to serious consequences sometimes it's important for fairness and transparency to notify subjects of threads. All other major boards have this requirement so it's not red tape, it's bringing this board's policy into line with the others. The NatDemUK thread above is a case in point. This could lead to a sitewide ban for him but he was not informed until extensive discussion had already taken place. A notification requirement would prevent this kind of problem. Exxolon (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the point of making this a "rule" or "requirement"? Other than because admins tend to like rules so they can enforce them? Of course you shouldn't ban anyone before they are even aware they are being discussed, that's the ancient "warn them first" rule that I have found on Wikipedia when I joined in 2004. What is the difference of saying it would be a courtesy and making it a "requirement"? So there can be a bureaucratic process of penalizing people who failed to notify people they mentioned? Perhaps even a noticeboard where people can be reported who failed to notify people they reported on a board? Please, take a step back. I know administrators tend to forget this, but we are here to write an encyclopedia, not to build a government. Administrators have a few buttons to deal with problems, preferably intelligently and unbureaucratically. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

For fairness and to bring this board in line with all other similar boards. There won't be a "bureaucratic process of penalizing people who failed to notify people" as you put it (unless someone repeatedly fails to do so after being asked) - typically the first person who sees/comments on a thread notifies the subject and reminds the poster (this seems to be current practice at ANI) - I can see no reason for this board to be exempt when notification is required at all other similar boards and has not led to any significant problems as far as I'm aware. Exxolon (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support - Really all upside. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In case you all missed it, up top on right under using this page you will see that it is the second comment there to notify users. HTH, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's currently only a "courtesy" and there is no corresponding message when you post to the page. Needs beefing up. Exxolon (talk) 14:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree that it needs more so I'll iVote on it. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Agree with what is said above. To me it's just common courtesy to inform someone when they are being discussed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support same should be true of mentions in arbcom cases and any other "official" forum. Verbal chat 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • what is an "official forum"? This is just a wiki page somebody created along the line and which became popular. The only arguably "official" institution here is the arbcom. Admins are just editors who have also been trusted to deal with disruption in good faith. Idealistic, I know, but sometimes the fulltime admins need to be reminded they aren't a government or a police force. --dab (𒁳) 16:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • ArbCom and any administrator action noticeboards. Also notification about pup discussions might be nice, but I can't think they're very common. Verbal chat 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • yes, notification would be nice. We agree on that. The question here is, however, would it be 'nice' to introduce yet another mandatory rule to widen the gap between the people writing articles and the people absorbed in "administration". --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • People "absorbed" in writing articles have to follow the rules, too. Some like writing articles better than enforcing the rules - and vice versa. It's collaborative, and we need both concerns addressed here; or else it's a free-for-all. There shouldn't be much of any gap... Doc9871 (talk) 06:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is probably already happening in practice, I hope. This'll just make it official. 67.136.117.132 (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose yet another formal rule, which won't change anything in practice: considerate people have always informed others; less considerate people will always forget it. Plus, any bit of additional text added to the header will make it even less likely that people will take in anything from the header at all. It is already ridiculously big. I swear I never read the current header, and I doubt many other people do. I can support adding another tag only on condition that people propose at least two or three existing tags to be removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Imagine any editor logging in after several days of not editing, and being informed they were banned (without notice). Blocks (even indefinite ones) can be appealed far more easily than a ban. These "ban" threads do routinely get opened and closed at this board without being moved to AN/I (where you must inform the editor). This page should have the same standard as the others. Courts in "RL" inform you when they are going to put you on trial: it's only fair. Why shouldn't this board; esp. if you can get banned forever here without even knowing it? Doc9871 (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Duh. Obviously I am not saying people shouldn't be informed. That's common sense, and has always been. Any ban discussion held without notifying the affected user would always have been considered void when challenged. What I'm saying is, don't waste space in a header that nobody is going to read anyway. This is pointless instruction creep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Instruction creep is a valid argument (and, having discovered this barnstar recently I considered - partly in jest, partly seriously - the need for a Black Barnstar for editors who successfully push back instruction creep). However, this is simply bringing consistency across boards, which IMHO would reduce confusion. In practice editors unfamiliar with ANI do not get "punished" for failing to inform editors they mention: it's all part of the learning curve, and we all understand that. Your point about the header is well made, and I for one am constantly surprised by what's been in headers for some time, and which I've never seen. The AN edit notice, however, is relatively short as edit notices go, and would seem to be an ideal location to advise editors about the need to inform other editors. TFOWR 08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) @Future Perfect - It couldn't be that hard to simply go into the header and change the current "plea" as it is to, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so." It's not about drastically reorganizing the header and thereby wasting space; but simply strengthening the wording and creating a simple template. Whether nobody reads it or not is debatable... Doc9871 (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well, take this as an example. I never saw that existing notice in the header. And right now, I looked at the header to see if it was there, didn't see it, and recoiled in horror from the task of scanning the whole thing to find it. But I'll take your word for it. :-) – BTW, another thing, while notification is of course a matter of common sense, I am also concerned a "must" rule will lead to silly formalistic complications, if people will insist on its letter against common sense. Take the following hypothetical situation: User X was blocked, let's say indef, but has been permanently socking since, through IPs and throwaway accounts. After half a year of socking, somebody wants to solidify the block (and de-facto ban) into a full formal community ban. Who do you notify? The original X account (probably not read any longer anyway). The latest sock? (probably discarded and unread too.) All known socks? The latest IP talkpages? It's particularly useless because in such a situation the blocked account wouldn't be welcome to participate in the discussion anyway, being already de-facto banned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in that scenario, things could get a little "dicey". It'd be best to have some killer SPI evidence to accompany User X's community ban proposal (and wouldn't worry much about notifying it or its socks if it is already indef blocked and proven socking). Anyhoo, as TFOWR pointed out, you don't get into any trouble for not reporting someone at AN/I - and you wouldn't here, either. It's really a basic formality that makes it in line with the other boards. Cheers, Fut.Perf! :> Doc9871 (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - It should go without saying that this warning will be added to the edit-warning template, prominently. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• I think the rule may be read inflexibly. There's sometimes good reasons for not directly notifying an user, and sometimes it's not best to demand those reasons be revealed on-wiki. I think as long as an user specifically notes in their complaint that they haven't notified the subject and requests someone (anyone) to notify them on their behalf, this should be permissible (because it's an option that would not be exercised without good reason). But if such a note doesn't accompany the AN post, or the user has forgotten or deliberately chose not to notify an user even where they should be, that's when the rule has some value. So I'd conditionally support (if that proviso exists, otherwise annoying people will insist that someone wasn't notified and that it was improper - even though the AN post specifically said that they weren't notified and requested someone else to)...but even then, whether the rule is going to change anything in practice is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Even I have sometimes not notified people (boneheaded oversight on occasion and once when the user appeared to be ignoring my posts on their talk already - I noted that on the thread and someone else notified them for me) - as long as there's a note "I have not notified them because of X" that seems fine. Exxolon (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as redundant and instruction creep. The talk about about how nice it would be to add another edit message no one will read just compounds my frustration. We can point to AN/I as an example of how this "works", but it really doesn't. In practice most conscientious editors notified parties upon initiating a discussion, most other editors prompted a notification from AN/I regulars and the balance weren't really impacted by the stringent requirement. The only real positive effect the policy had was to nip in the bud repeated discussions as to the necessity and timing of notification--of couse this is almost outweighed by the noisome habit of needling petitioners to notify all editors in bold text or template form. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No notification requirement stipulations are "on the table" as of yet. This is neither bold text nor templated: I just just added a diff. No one will read the edit message? You're responding on a thread that was created because some editors are seeking to change the edit message here. Some editors read 'em, it seems... Doc9871 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the habit of needling reporting individuals to notify all involved. So say I start a thread on AN/I, my first response is likely to be some question "did you notify Bob?" (really unobjectionably) or more likely "It is WP:MANDATORY to WP:NOTIFY Bob, blarg blarg blarg" (less unobjectionable). The actual notification templates for user talk pages (which predate the requirement on AN/I) are fine. As for the edit notice, you aren't disproving my point. There is no shortage of folks willing to write things no one will read. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Notification is an essential element of any Due Process policy. — GabeMc (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, since notification is essentially mandated by existing etiquette guidelines throughout wiki, the propose guideline would be a policy for process's sake, since people who forget to notify others about discussions here will continue to do so. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 10:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • They might well do, but a notification requirement means that the first editor who notices the lack of notification (on ANI for example) tends to do it themselves - I think that regardless of whether it's the poster or first editor who notices, prompt notification is a net positive. Exxolon (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
    • "Instruction creep" itself is not even a guideline, let alone policy. "It is an insidious disease, originating from ignorance...". Really? Sounds a wee bit "NPOV" - not! I feel it would be better to refer to policy on matters like this, rather than unreferenced "essayed" theories... Doc9871 (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It isn't a guideline or a policy because it isn't a mandate. There is no meaningful way for it to direct action like a policy. That doesn't mean that avoiding instruction creep is not a laudable goal. As for your invocation of NPOV and "unreferenced", I think you have the namespace confused. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Should be common sense, and writing it down somewhere makes a lot of sense to me. If only so we have something to point to when someone does not notify users he's talking about. --Conti|✉ 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this as another rule to replace common sense. I hate it when an ANI thread is derailed immediately with the first reply, because someone feels the need to lecture the reporter for not notifying the other party within 2 minutes. Where ANI threads are usually about issues with another editor, and AN is a board for more general matters, when will it be required to notify someone and when won't it? With common sense taken out of the equation, you better give some pretty specific instructions.--Atlan (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • And there it is, Exxolon himself provides an example of the annoying overzealousness that is frequently applied to enforce this rule. The guy waits 5 minutes to notify the other party and already he gets lectured on both ANI and his talk page (unwarranted I might add). I find this really annoying and I feel such energy is better spent in actually resolving the issue.--Atlan (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I certainly appreciate the concerns of editors regarding the informing of "any editor discussed" issue. Both Wikiquette and 3RR instruct to inform the reported user. This distinction is certainly a point of note. I'd have little problem compromising with "tweaking" the proposed change to specifying the reported user alone. Wot? Doc9871 (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Brings area in line with current policies in other area. "Common sense" clearly has not always been used - thus makit if formally the same in all areas would make a great deal of sense. "Any editor discussed" could clearly be edited to "any editor being specifically discussed" to avoid people saying that mentioning another editor in passing requires notification of that editor as well. Collect (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The "rule" has also clearly not always been followed, hence the aforementioned lectures, so that's a moot point.--Atlan (talk) 10:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I would prefer that this be hardcoded. When you open up a proposal, there could be a parameter for users which the proposal is about. Entering the user there would generate a notice to them. This would also make searching for topics which centered around a user easier, since a search could be tailored to screen out the comments on a proposal. II | (t - c) 17:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Effect in reality

From my experiences and what I've observed at WP:ANI the actual effect of the "must notify" rule seems to be :-

• Most editors notify the other party(ies) directly.
• When this has failed to occur, other editors quickly notice the lack of notification and do it themselves and post to that effect.

So the net effect seems to be that the subjects of posts are quickly made aware either way, which is a net positive. Exxolon (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Current levels of support/opposition

With the caveat that we're not a democracy and polls are evil currently:-

• Supporters - 12 (including myself as the proposer, including 1 "100%", 1 "Strong")
• Opposers - 5 (4 explicit, 1 "red tape")

This may assist in determining whether the proposal has consensus and should be implemented. Exxolon (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a self-designated member of the minority, let me take this time to rail against the principle of majority rule! :P Protonk (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a citizen of the United States, where even the smallest state (Rhode Island) has exactly the same number of Senators as the largest state (California), and subsequently disproportianate representation in the Electoral College (which elects the President, not the popular vote), please allow me to rail against the tyranny of the minority. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I read the comment a bit differently to user Excolon, I didn't count the proposer which may account for the different head count, I also do not count strong or weak comments, imo they have no weight in the count, but that just me. Lets ask a Crat to close this awful thread. Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Awful" thread? Seems fairly innocuous to me. I'm not sure we need a crat, just someone uninvolved to gauge consensus and edit the necessary headers if they feel consensus is to make the charge - (this may need to be an admin as the headers are protected?) and modify the subst-ANI template to creat a new AN one. Exxolon (talk) 17:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion to close as carried

This thread is now 4 days old. Current support level is 70% by my calculation. Can a neutral admin look over this and if they concur with my assessment take steps to modify the relevant headers and create the relevant template as discussed? Exxolon (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2010 (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.

Blocking vandals from editing own talk pages

Hi, admins. I just noticed how common it is to stop blocked vandals, spammers, and corporate-name accounts from editing their own talk pages before they have done anything on their talk pages. I don't understand this policy. From my point of view, I would only block someone from editing their talk page if they were abusing the {{unblock}} template or otherwise causing an annoyance on their page. If they haven't done anything on their talk page yet, I think we should allow vandalism-only, spam-only, and corporate-named accounts that we have permanently blocked to edit their talk pages so that they can ask questions about their block and better understand our policy. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples? In my experience, we already do what you propose.  Sandstein  09:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples would be good - I only ever block with them open to request unblock, unless it's brutal attacks/threats, and don't see anyone else doing otherwise (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The page that caught my attention was the spam and improper name account User talk:Office of Fair Trading. It was right for the admin to permanently block it, but I though that the talk page should be left open in case the blocked user had any questions. I turned talk page editing back on, but was reverted and I didn't want to get into a wheel war. Looking through the block log for the last twelve hours, I see a few more talk page blocks that seem unnecessary (without knowing of any other backstory, at least). User:182.18.252.175, User:88.104.80.228, User:71.249.0.0/16, User:Analexploration, and User:Dancedanceparty never made any edits to their talk pages, yet lost talk page editing when hit with (justified) blocks. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 10:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

To be quite honest, disabling talk page access on that Office of Fair Trading block was a mistake. I used easyblock.js to make that block, which usually has something like "voa-indef" as the final selection in the dropdown. Apparently for spam accounts, the final selection is "spam-indef+notalk", which I mistakenly selected. NW (Talk) 15:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unrelated to the above, but pertinent to the spammer's MO: this isn't the first time we've had spam like this: I blocked an account for spamming the same uk.gov website, and posted at ANI for review. Elen of the Roads (talk) mentioned they were going to ping the relevant uk.gov department - I wonder if Elen had any luck with a response? TFOWR 15:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ConsumerDirect emailed me back after a couple of days with a name and phone number to talk to, but I've been out of the office most of this week and haven't had a chance to ring. I'll put it on the to do list for Monday and get back to you guys.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Plainly somebody at the OFT/ConsumerDirect has been giving the WP:Bad Idea Machine a whirl. "I know! We can annoy Wikipedia admins as part of a public awareness campaign! That'll work!!!". I think they do need putting straight. Fences&Windows 20:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD needs closing

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Devlin. The result is pretty obvious, but it's been open for nearly a month. I'd close it myself, but I !voted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed. Courcelles (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, apparently, it was never transcluded on a daily log page, hence it slipped through the cracks. Courcelles (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When is vanity autobiography allowed (example given)? (moved from WP:RDM)

The discussion below was moved from WP:RDM to this, a more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

May I write a "User:" page for myself like these two?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ideabender/Chris_McGrath_(computer_engineer)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:74.94.155.101/Chris_McGrath_(computer_engineer)

Wikipedia claims to discourage autobiographical articles. But these are user pages, not articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isopyknic (talk • contribs) 21:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free homepage provider. Content unrelated to the encyclopedia is not encouraged. That said, if it's in user space, you might get away with it. But why would you want to? There are lots of free homepage providers out there that are specifically for this sort of thing. Friday (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think these cross the line - even for User: pages. They should probably be removed. The relevant guideline is WP:USER and it says: "Note: Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion. For example a 5 page résumé and advertising for your band will probably be too much, a brief 3 sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine." - and also in the list of "Excessive unrelated content", we find: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.".

So, no - I don't think you should do this. SteveBaker (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, those are a bit excessive. Your user page is supposed to provide information that will help people work with you on Wikipedia, nothing more. --Tango (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the latter (in user space of the IP) should be deleted outright. Mr. McGrath does not own the IP address, so can't post content under that userspace. --Ragib (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Specific to this, note Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_McGrath_(computer_engineer). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would also favor deletion or blanking of the user page version. The user in question has made no edits apart from this unsuitable-for-mainspace article, and none in the past 8 months. There's no evidence of an effort to make this a suitable article. — Lomn 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Both are deleted now. One page by me, one by another admin. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• Generally, though, vanity (auto)bio's and articles are permitted, providing they otherwise satisfy WP's criteria for inclusion (claim of notability, and reliable third party sources). Once they are within the system, superfluous and non policy compliant material may be removed and other compliant content, whether or not it casts the subject in a good light, may be added. Those are the risks one accepts when presenting a new article in which one has a COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
• If you do decide to write an autobiography article, make sure you include an appropriate image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

original

replacement

A magenta-tinted headshot is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I've replaced it with a cropped version with the color stripped out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your change appears to have been reverted, so I guess not everyone agrees. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The reversion is misguided, since it was on the basis that the magenta image was uploaded by the subject -- but we don't allow subjects to control the content of articles about them. If a subject added content to the article that was promotional, or used flowery language to puff themselves up, or was otherwise in violation of NPOV, we would take that material out. It's no different with the photograph. The purpose of an infobox image is to identify the subject of the article, and that function is important enough that we routinely allow certain non-free images to be used for that purpose. A magenta-tint on a black and white photgraph adds an unnecessarily distracting decorative element which impedes that function, and is the imagistic equivalent of being NPOV. I suspect, given the subject of Cytowic's books, that some point is being made about synathesia, but we don't allow pointy editing of any kind. The cropped black and white image is objectively more fitting for an encyclopedia than an artifically tinted one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (The article is Richard Cytowic, by the way, since I'm not seeing a link above).  Sandstein  09:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

My only role in this was to point out the image, which has always been a source of amusement for me and an indication of just how much we actually do allow people to control their autobiographies through an understandable lack of scrutiny due to the overwhelmingly large number of biographies that we presently have. I find the discussion about what constitutes an encyclopaedic image to be just a tad irksome, since it is likely that this discussion will receive more input than an RfC I started about the gratuitous use of images of pierced genitals in a summary article. Ah, Wikipedia, you are nothing if not inconsistent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More discussion on the Cytowic image on the article's talk page, here, for those interested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for admin to close RfC

Could an uninvolved admin close Talk:The Autobiography of Malcolm X#Request for Comments: Authorship? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• I sorta closed it. Check back to see what needs doing. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I appreciate your time. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

IOS jailbreaking

IOS jailbreaking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on pending changes protection, but there is so much vandalism, edit warring and unsourced claims that the protection level really needs to be changed to full protection. This was just on the WP:RFPP page, but was declined because it's pending changes protected. That would be fine if it weren't so often vandalized. Do we just leave all of the vandalism in, or are we supposed to pick through the 20 to 30 edits on pending changes to pull out the ones which are valid? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism continues rampant. I'm not going to deal with it any more. Have fun, if you aren't interested in actually protecting it instead of pretending. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I switched to semi-protection par this reasoning. If another admin disagrees with this change feel free to revert it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some questionable conduct

First of all, I would like to say that the administrator user:SlimVirgin is a great administrator. Her monitoring of the page protection noticeboard has helped maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and I am thankful that she has helped when I have called upon her. However, I find issue with her conduct when she is involved in content disputes. This is long term behaviour that I think should be brought to other editors attention (note, I am not even almost suggesting for her adminship to be revoked etc but simply for it to be on record).

A few hours ago, I reverted a bold edit made by SlimVirgin that went against the active discussions on the talk page. While I was finding a compromise between this bold edit and the consensus version, SV continually reverted back to the non-consensus version.[76][77] (note that on the second occasion, SV attempted to conceal the full revert through use of a misleading edit summary.)I made SlimVirgin aware that this was in violation of the WP editing policy yet she continued to again revert. After implementing a compromised version, where I included the most of SVs bold version and the consensus version SV sent me threats to restore her own version or she would report me. It should be noted that I was not in violation of 3RR.User_talk:Ari89#Reverting SV has now lodged a 3RR violation without an actual violation. This is not the first time she has done that, but we have been on good terms so I do not care about the past. However, the 3RR report is worded as an attack on myself. It makes accusations that I hold a "strong religious POV" yet there is no reason to suspect this. In fact, the edits in conflict have nothing to do with religious POV. SV has also stated that I have not contributed to the article, when a search of the edit history shows that I have added much content, and I am often actively engaged in the talk page discussions.

That said, this is not the place for me to defend against a 3RR allegation. But it seems that SV opts for lodging the 3RR without a breach in order to remove me instead of actively engaging in consensus building activities as part of a content dispute. In essence, it is a content dispute and the talk pages are open for her and any other editor to join in.Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Lead --Ari (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• There have been two big CMT-related AN/I discussions in the past two days alone. There are still CMT-related discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard, the fringe theories noticeboard, and the neutral point of view noticeboard (twice!). There's even a whole RFM, that you are listed as a party to. Has the thought not arisen that people might be a little hypersensitive in this area at the moment? I recommend that we not start yet another noticeboard discussing this. Uncle G (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating Arbitration policy

The latest draft of the proposed update to the Arbitration policy is here with discussion of the draft here. All editors are cordially invited to participate.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Toilet paper orientation

Resolved

 – Not speedyable. The correct orientation is over, for what it's worth. –xeno^talk 14:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I just put a speedy delete tag on this. It's obiously a fake-sourced nonsense article and a looks like promo for a product called Tilt-a-Roll, which allows customers to orient their toilet paper in a number of different ways (link at the bottom of the page). Feel a bit guilty, because editors have done quite a good job and gone to a lot of trouble to fake things, including a talk page history, "Did you know?" Main Page appearance and article assessment.

It's difficult to know what is real and what is not, but it looks to have actually survived a deletion vote with unanimity Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toilet paper orientation. For what its worth I'm impressed, but the article should be deleted. Look at it please. --FormerIP (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am having a hard time figuring out which is more plausible, that you cannot click on any one of the links in Toilet paper orientation#References and that you think a sysop went through all that effort just to get a hoax on the main page, or that you are just trolling. NW (Talk) 14:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's really possible to give a civil reply to that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a serious question. Did you take the time to check out any of the references? NW (Talk) 12:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lol, this thing is almost better than European toilet paper holder. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You should also note that "if a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations". Deor (talk) 14:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review: JRHammond

JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was until recently blocked for 55 hours for edit warring; I declined one of his unblock requests. After the block expired, JRHammond made three edits to the talk page of the article he had been warring about: [78], [79], [80]. In reaction to these edits, administrator Wgfinley (talk · contribs) blocked JRHammond for one week, logging the following reason:

"Personal attacks or harassment: promptly launching into personal attacks right after your ban expires is not a good idea, take another 7 days to contemplete it."

On JRHammond's talk page, Wgfinley expanded on this, noting:

"(...) [I]mmediately after being unblocked you make a personal attack on me when I just asked you to take it down a notch: (...) Finally, launching into an attack on an admin that's just trying to keep the peace, was not even involved in any of the prior discussions and had nothing to do with you being blocked is a far cry from civil. You have 7 days to cool down now (...)"

After reading JRHammond's unblock request while patrolling CAT:RFU, I believe that Wgfinley erred in making this block. The three edits made by JRHammond after their block expired contain nothing blockable; disagreeing with an administrator is not forbidden and is not a personal attack. Furthermore, Wgfinley as the target of the perceived personal attack should not have blocked JRHammond himself, and "cool-down blocks" are in any case frowned upon. Because Wgfinley disagrees with this assessment (see User talk:JRHammond#One Week Block), I request a wider discussion of this block as recommended by the blocking policy in cases of administrator disagreement.  Sandstein  17:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sandstein. Apparently one of the reason for the block was response by JRHammond to the comment I made. Although my opinion about my comment has not changed, I see nothing blockabale in the user's response to my comment. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Looked through the edits - nothing that warrants a block, let alone a 7 day one. As a subject of one of the edits Wgfinley should not have blocked in any event, but asked another admin to check the edits and block if they felt that was required. If JRHammond's editing on this article is a long term issue, there are better ways to deal with that - RFC or community sanctioned topic ban for example. Exxolon (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. I don't see any need to discuss that any further, though further view of Wgfinley's action would be wise. This looks like taking the power of the tools too far into social engineering rather than enforcing policy, and all admins should know never to hand out "cool down" blocks. Fences&Windows 18:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm reposting what I put on the user's talk page here, simply looking at these three edits and reversing my decision is hardly looking into what has been going on in the edit war on that page.

His last block was all off 55 hours, during that time he refused to admit he did anything wrong and made no less than 4 unblock requests all of which were turned down. He promptly waded back in with this, he jumps right back into warring with other editors ("as you perfectly well know", "it's absolutely uncontroversial") and then accuses me of making a personal attack on him (WP:NPANPA) when I just asked him to tone it down (before he was blocked by another admin). He's never once admitted he did anything wrong or agreed to try to work more productively which is the centerpiece of unblocking (WP:GAB). The fact that he thanked me somewhere else is irrelevant, the fact that he spent his entire time blocked refusing to accept being blocked and blames others (WP:NOTTHEM) is and the fact he immediately jumped right back is (WP:NAM). By itself his diffs aren't enough to merit having his block extended, they are when you consider the totality of his behavior. I would encourage you to go look at the past several months of Six Days War discussion to see a clear pattern where JRH refuses to play well with others and is constantly POV pushing. If he were to ever show contrition I would consider reducing the block but he doesn't seem to feel he does anything wrong, hence the need for an extension of his block. --WGFinley (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get some semblance of peace on an article that has raged in edit war for 3 months, has escalated to various other areas, he's chewed up one person who tried to mediate already and now chewed me. I can trust one of you folks to keep watchful eye on the article now? --WGFinley (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said above "If JRHammond's editing on this article is a long term issue, there are better ways to deal with that - RFC or community sanctioned topic ban for example." - take it to RFC (assuming that has not been done) or go to RFAR or ask for a community sanctioned topic/article ban. Exxolon (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an Palestine-Israel article, it clearly falls in the purview of discretionary sanctions and doesn't require further community review for this specific instance. All users editing have been warned there multiple times about the edit warring and incivility not just by me but by multiple admins and another admin warned him on his talk page again before I blocked him again. Everyone working that article is well aware their conduct can can result in general sanctions. --WGFinley (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Then ask for uninvolved admin(s) to check and issue a topic ban under Wikipedia:General sanctions if you feel JRH's conduct over the last 3 months warrants it - the block you issued was not covered by them, in fact you specifically said that you would take actions under those criteria if he came back from the block and was disruptive again. Exxolon (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I was uninvolved, this is a clear case of administrators who aren't aware of the history there being dragged in to look at one instance. On its face what he did didn't merit a block, it's the totality of his behavior. If you look at his contribution history, the edit history of the article and the pages of disputes there you can get an idea of what is going on and why Arbcom cautioned against reversing admins who have made sanctions without knowing the whole background.

2) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

I got one opportunity to respond to this and my block was overturned, I would hardly consider that extensive discussion or consensus-building. He came back with an announcement that he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, accused me of a personal attack on him and jumped right back into vitriol on the talk page immediately after coming off a block. That's why I blocked him, he shows no interest in changing his behavior in a controversial article. --WGFinley (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wgfinley. This has been going on for weeks. The user has been incessantly edit-warring on a sensitive topic covered by sanctions, and has displayed a combative attitude. His reaction to all three blocks has been to claim he did nothing wrong, and to attack the blocking admin, the admin responding to the unblock request, any admin that doesn't unblock him, anyone he's edit-warred with, etc. I'd call it a persistent refusal to understand how Wikipedia works, and why edit-warring and attacks are frowned upon. Enigma^msg 19:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked into the situation too much, though I did read the thread above. It seems to me that situations like these should be handled by using "Arbitration Enforcement: [Block Reason]" as the block reason if the block is indeed meant to handle situations where one editor is acting disruptively in a topic area and discretionary sanctions are being used to try to calm an area down. As Arbitration Enforcement blocks cannot (usually) be overturned without a clear community consensus to do so, clearly indicating that a block was made in pursuit of calming down an area that ArbCom has allowed discretionary sanctions for would make the situation a lot easier to handle. NW (Talk) 20:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I should have been more clear in the reason for my block and that it was related to sanctions, I didn't mention that and I forgot to post it on the log, both clearly my fault. --WGFinley (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Block Reinstatement

Unresolved

I believe this block should be reinstated. I made an error not identifying this as a block for actions taken on a WP:GS article but the following is clear:

1. He has been warned repeatedly about edit warring on this article [81]
2. He has been warned this is a WP:GS article [82] [83]
3. All participants on the article have been warned it's a WP:GS article, it's referenced in multiple areas on the talk page
4. He responded to another reminder that this is a WP:GS article and to cool down with this: [84] for which I originally blocked him
5. This is his third block by three uninvolved administrators for edit warring and WP:CIVIL violations on this article. [85] [86] [87]
6. As in previous instances he lashes out against the blocking admin [88] [89] [90] [91], to the point others ask him to stop [92] and makes repeated requests to be unblocked.
7. I haven't asked for a sock investigation but this account edits this article, and this article only: Special:Contributions/JRHammond
8. His only other involvement is requesting MedCab involvement, the first try blew up Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-11/Six-Day_War where he chewed up the first mediator for relatively simple questions (i.e. regarding sources)

Basically I believe there is more than enough evidence here to support the block I made at 7 days under general sanctions. I erred in not identifying this as the primary reason for my block, it was given to him as a reason though [93]. To not do so just shows the others who are edit warring on the article they are free to edit war away and even if blocked they can go for the wheel war and find an admin who will lift the block. It's what he's done every time he was blocked. --WGFinley (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The special rules for arbitration enforcement blocks (WP:AEBLOCK) apply only to blocks made "explicitly or in substance" pursuant to an arbitration decision, so such blocks should always be labeled as AE blocks, e.g., with {{uw-aeblock}}. But in this case, I do not see any grounds for a reinstatement of the block, because the incidents you cite appear to relate to the time before the expiration of his previous 55 h block. After that, he made only the three talk page edits I linked to above, and these three edits are not blockable conduct. Now I've made many AE blocks in this topic area against disruptive editors on both sides of the conflict, and I'm both strongly against leniency with ethno-nationalist POV-pushers as well as against making it too easy to lift blocks by others (which I avoided doing here). But in this case there has been no actual disruption since the expiration of the block and any new block (which may well be a long block) should only occur in case of new disruption, such as edit warring. Besides, your original block rationale focused on the perceived (but, to me, non-existent) personal attack against you, and in such situations it is unbecoming for the attacked administrator to make the block themselves; rather, they should leave any action against the attack (not against other disruption) to other admins.  Sandstein  06:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough I think those are all valid points, I trust others will keep watch on the situation. --WGFinley (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO these actions by User:Wgfinley are very poor Admin actions and presents a case for removal of his tools, the user is nor a regular editor and has only limited edit history. Jan 11, 2006 RFA he has only got five hundred edits since then and has not the experience to use the tools, at least not for blocking anybody, especially anyone he is involved with or at an article he is involved in. note: - I have left him a note on his talkpage asking him as to his position as regards WP:recall. Off2riorob (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Submit myself to a process there was no consensus on? The admin policy has been clear, unless somewhere along the line Wikibreaks became unallowed adminiship has never required constant activity and I don't think I'm the first admin to have someone disagree with a block he has made. --WGFinley (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What actions? As far as I can tell, it's one admin action up for debate here. It seems to me that you're advocating he be desysopped because he made one block you disagree with. That about cover it? Enigma^msg 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for anyone to be desopped, actually I asked him if he was open to recall and suggested he voluntarily put down his tools or at least state that he will not block any one he is involved with or on a topic that he is involved in or that he asks the community if they still support his authority to take administrative actions. My request was after reading this and looking at his edit history and the additional fact that he defended and supported his mistaken administrative actions and wanted the action re implemented, this apparent inability to see and accept that he made an error is as big an issue to me as the original mistaken block. I am presently working on formating the questions for wider community discussion as regards admin recall and admin reconfirmation and inactive administrators guidelines. Does anyone have the links to previous related discussions? Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you said actions, as in plural. A post to WP:AN is not an admin action. You said "presents a case for removal of his tools", which I take to mean you want him desysopped because you disagree with a block he made. Most admins are not open to recall, so if you make a post like that, it's taken to mean you want them forcibly desysopped. Enigma^msg 15:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Actions, well, the blocking and then the request that it be reinstated. As I said above I am not requesting the forcible removal of anything. I personally think and have pointed out to him that I don't think he should block anyone that he is involved with or involved in the article or editing with, administrators usually understand this anyways. You seem a bit defensive when there is no one under attack, do you think it is not ok to ask Administrators to reconsider their usage of the tools, it is a privilege you know and one which requires continued community support. Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point. There was one admin action. Anyone can ask for a block to be put in place or reinstated. That's hardly an admin action. You're calling for his tools because he made one admin action you disagree with. "You seem a bit defensive when there is no one under attack" - I read it quite differently, when you're calling for desysopping right off the bat. Enigma^msg 23:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Problem

(If this is the wrong place then please move this to Wikipedia:ANI)

I am good888 on here and i have a friend(the xbox kid)

Me and my friend are newbies here so we don't know much here.The problem is that we are concened that we have been accused of sockpuppety but we do not know the page for sockpuppet concens.The reason why is that my older brother had a account here when he was younger(Because of a school he used to go to was doing some wikipedia stuff) and we think that a user(by mistake of couse) has accused us of sockpuppety and we maybe be even blocked for it.

If one:there was no case:then use the checkuser so you can see how many users there are useing this ip.If there is me and my brother(my friend should not be on there because he signed up on another computer) then at least i(and my friend) can edit again. If there are more accounts on the checkuser results then they have to be my brothers sockpuppets because i would never ever create any more accounts because i like to help wikipedia not harm it. If two:there was a case:If it was just me,my brother and my friend:end the case please.If there are more then us three there then use checkuser to see if they are my brothers or not.Then end the case

If three:the case has finshed and me my brother and my friend have been blocked:Please unblock us (read above for reasion). If there are more users in the case use checkuser again to see if they are sockpuppets of my brother or not.If they are not unblock them.If they are sockpuppets of my brother don't unblock them and my brother(even though my brother never goes on wikipedia any more)

Think we are lying?Well please do unblock us as someone on here called Jack something(i forgot the last part) was given a secound chance even though he made a load of sockpuppets and me and my friend should be given a unblock as we have made no other accounts.

By the way my brother may have not made a account i only think so because he once said one of his friends(who once deleted the usa history and replaced it with something) was banned from editing wikipedia.

p.s my friend isn't here at the monment Its just me and no we are not telling that silly little brother thingy

pp.s sorry for this massive post

Thanks from good888 92.1.78.66 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Evading your block to complain about it, and blaming your brother, classic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And, to make it even better, neither of the accounts you mention has edited in a few months, and neither of them is directly blocked or has a sockpuppetry notice on their user or talk pages, so we don't even have anywhere to start replying to this without knowing the name of the "brother" account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thedavemaster

Resolved

 – sort of. User still blocked, but request has been properly reviewed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This user was blocked 2 days ago but he has sincerely apologized and by keeping a tight watch on him, so please lift block. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 15:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has reviewed his unblock request because he formatted it wrong and it did not get added to Category:Requests for unblock. I'll review it now, but I'm not too impressed by that "apology." Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this case might make a good RfA question. My guess is that a candidate who said that he would maintain an indef in this situation would have a chance of passing of pretty close to zero. Looie496 (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is to say, the normal odds. bibliomaniac15 18:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining an unblock request does not mean the user will remain blocked forever. I think I explained myself pretty clearly, if he can give a more honest and compelling rationale to be unblocked I have no problem spooling out some WP:ROPE and letting him prove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Beeblebrox. If someone decides to unblock them, I would be Ok with that, no need to ask - routine AIV block for usual vandalism, I have no other history with that user. Materialscientist (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN3 is backing up

Three reports in the last 14 hours none have been adressed from an admin thanx Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

Any free administrators who could take a look at the Vandalism board would be appreciated. Some have been sitting there for quite some time. Active Banana (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks clear now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating Checkuserblock template

I had a interesting question come up on my talk page. I declined an unblock request from an IP, as they were caught in a rangeblock placed by Alison. This was a checkuser block and it has been specified those cannot be lifted without appealing to Arbcom or the checkuser who placed the block. However, DuncanHill left me a note pointing out that any IP caught in the rangeblock isn't really given good advice on what to do. I left another note on the IP's talk page with the arbcom email address (and later apologized for the incorrect advice).

When I went to look at {{CheckUser block}}, I see instructions for registered users caught up in it, but no instructions for IP's. My question is this: is it easier to update that template (which already contains a lot of text) with instructions for anonymous users caught in the block or should it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis as users post unblock requests? TNXMan 13:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• The instructions for creating an account are already in the MediaWiki:Blockedtext. In this case the user should have been directed to create/request an account, or log into their existing one. It seems to me the user was complaining more about the block itself than lack of direction, but perhaps an extra line in the template about the necessity to have an account would be helpful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The user was complaining about 1)the incorrect information given to blocked IP, 2) the unexplained block itself, does anyone know how many IPs are affected by it? and 3) being forced to log in (especially by an Admin with a stated wish to stop all anon editors). DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There are 65,000 IPs, and either more or fewer users. The block is due to recent disruption from sockpuppets from that network, as noted in the template and the block log (a quick search will give you more answers). We often anonblock ranges when there's considerable disruption from them. This is the third time this range has been checkuserblocked. Logging in is something we sometimes ask users to do when they're on the same networks as vandals. Would explicit instructions to log in to your account have helped? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Explicit instructions about how to contest a checkuser block (i.e. emailing Arbcom) would have helped, as would a readily visible link to the block log. Asking editors who find themselves unable to edit because of someone else's misbehaviour to make all the running in finding out what has happened just pisses people off, and is likely to lead to more, not less, vandalism. The template I was presented with was unclear, confusing and unhelpful. I am a very experienced editor. God knows what someone here for the first time would make of it - they'd probably read it as "fuck off, you're not wanted". I shouldn't be forced to log in to edit. I don't want to log in to edit. I hate logging in to edit. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• So the whole of Hutchison 3G U.K. is blocked in effective perpetuity (August is a long way away.) because of a single vandal, eh? We really need to come up with a mechanism for transferring complaints about individuals to ISPs, because the road that we are travelling does not end up in a good place. Eventually there'll be one apple spoiling the barrel at every ISP, and our principle of openness will be halfway gone. Uncle G (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:ABUSE? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • From my experience with it, WP:ABUSE isn't going to have any teeth unless WMF employees make the abuse calls, and even then ISPs are incredibly hesitant to enforce their ToS. (See also User:Mmbabies, whom has in the past wound up holding mush of Houston hostage because AT&T refused to listen to abuse reports.) Abuse departments will generally not listen to people who do not have an @wikipedia.org or @wikimedia.org email address. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 19:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• I have a related technical question. If I block a range of IP addresses, the individual IP addresses see only the block log, correct? And only when they attempt to edit? In other words if I block my account right now, I can look at my block log to verify the reason and duration, but if I was just an ip in a /20, I could only see the block log if I attempted to edit? Protonk (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm on the Hutchison 3G ISP and there are two groups of IP ranges. We seem to have been blocked many times before on both ranges thanks to User:Mickey Darwin (as with this case), User:Dr Roots and (for most cases) User:GEORGIEGIBBONS. Every time we connect to the network, we may be on a different range (usually this range and the one blocked due to Mickey Darwin). WP:ABUSE may be useful. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:ABUSE has been heavily revamped but 12 months ago when I last poked about it seemed more like a holding pen for reports than an actual avenue for results. Unfortunately from an ISP perspective long term abuse on wikipedia hits the "don't know, don't care, can't help" trifecta. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And that is a reason why so many socks are at large today, ISPs don't give a ****. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Didn't I just say that above? ISPs want to hear from an employee of the organization (i.e. someone paid to deal with such stuff). Mmbabies issued death threats towards celebrities, and we couldn't get AT&T to yank his access because the reporter isn't a WMF employee. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
        • And as Jeske said above, ISPs still dont give a f*** regardless of who files the reports, which practically means that there is no sanction to permanantly stop the three vandals I mentioned as well as many others across the world. It seems that the ISPs don't care as long as they get their money. 92.40.164.249 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• (That's not how one spells "fig".) A technical solution has been suggested on my talk page, which I've referred to the Technical Village Pump. But yes, as others have said, the problem is more an administrative one than a technical one, I think. Checkusers can identify the IP addresses and edit times, but we (collectively) cannot seem to transfer that information to ISPs in such a way that they sit up and take notice. ISPs sit up and take notice when their customers send unsolicited bulk electronic mail. Perhaps it is time that the world started encouraging them to sit up and take notice when their customers come to a charitable foundation's WWW site and start doing what this vandal did. (I'm carefully skirting around the issue for the obvious reasons.) Consider the negative publicity that Hutchison 3G would incur if it transpired that it knew that it had a customer that was using the World Wide Web for this purpose, and was ignoring the matter. I suggest that any ISP would consider sitting up and taking notice when abuse reports come in from Wikipedia volunteers to be by far the less painful course of action in the long term. Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a bad idea but the problem is that most vandals/socks use dynamic IP ranges. 92.40.199.161 (talk) 08:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This is not a problem at all. Hutchinson 3G knows exactly who you are, for example. Uncle G (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Dynamic IPs aren't an issue at all. Generally, an ISP tends to have information on whom was using a particular IP on their network at any given time. Also, I heavily doubt we, as Wikipedians, could and should get into the public shaming business. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 17:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree, doing anything "real" about this (either through PR or legal channels) is something that could massively backfire. But it seems that abuse reports as it is lacks teeth and will probably continue to lack teeth. ISPs will continue to do nothing if the risk of doing nothing is de minimis. In the case of death threats, contacts to law enforcement agencies should reference the ISP and note that an abuse report will be sent out, and the corresponding abuse report should note that law enforcement has been contacted. All this should preferentially take place from a WMF email address. But for general long-term abuse... maybe contact should be reserved for cases where the organization controlling the address might care (e.g., the abuse originated from within a corporate network, or there is reason to believe the abuse originated from a compromised host). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Which means that the same vandals will just keep coming back because the ISPs simply don't care what happens on the Internet as long as they get their money, particulary the larger ISPs like BT, AT&T and Hutchison 3G (not sure whether H3G have ever recieved a WP:ABUSE report or not). 92.40.206.112 (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If the ISPs simply don't care, then the solution is to make them. It might be newsworthy that customers of BT, AT&T and Hutchison 3G are unable to create accounts or edit Wikipedia because they refuse to enforce their TOS. Just my two cents. -- llywrch (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating Checkuserblock template - updated

• I've updated the checkuserblock template to be more user friendly. The updated version 1/ emphasizes that the blocked user may not have done anything wrong, 2/ provides better explanation in plain English, 3/ provides better instructions how to deal with it. If anyone wants to migrate any of those copyedits onto other block templates, it might be a good idea. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That is better thank you FT2, but the "you may appeal the block here" link is not ideal. Checkuser blocks have to be appealed to Arbcom by email, may as well just say that on the template instead of linking to the guide to appealing blocks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need to offer anon IPs the opportunity to appeal the block at all? The comparable non-checkuser range block template - {{Anonblock}} - doesn't and hasn't at any time in the four years it has been in use.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then that one should include them too. Thanks for spotting it. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? This seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The existing notice that people get when caught in a rangeblock is confusing and leads people to appeal in the wrong manner, or admins to give mistaken advice. Arbs had an email about my experiences of it, I'm happy for any Arb to forward it to you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not my point :) I am curious to know why anons editing from dynamic IPs need an opportunity to appeal a range block.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Arbcom says they can appeal - it says so in the checkuser block notice on the Arbcom noticeboard. It would also be nice if just occasionally someone might be prepared to believe that not every anon on a dynamic IP is a vandal. I know that assuming good faith goes contrary to all the principles of Wikipedia, but it would be nice to try it for once. Now, you've already said the existing template needs rewording, why don't you come up with something? DuncanHill (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger - because the anon IP may be a genuinely blocked user who edits as an IP, and is the target of a range block. We do block specific IP users (or their ranges if dynamic) not just account users, and when they do, they need to know how to appeal it. It isn't just account holders that can appeal, and it isn't just the worst editors who have range blocks. It's even quite possible that in a large range block, there'll be a 2nd user who is independently blocked for something else and gets this message, and they need to know how to appeal. It happens, though don't ask me for a specific example (hard to find). In principle even the abuser who caused the range block itself, is still entitled to appeal it. It's not that common that someone needs to appeal a range block, but it can happen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger is perfectly well aware that it happens to innocent editors, as we've been discussing it by email since it happened to me. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

How would such an appeal be meaningful? The appellant writes saying they can't edit from their IP address; the response is that the IP range has been blocked and they should open an account or wait til the block is lifted.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So why did Arbcom say that editors can appeal? Were they just talking out of their collective arse? Should the template just say "Log in - or fuck off, that's your choice"? Christ Roger, you might as well have saved me the time and effort and told me upfront that Arbcom was going to ignore the appeal I submitted instead of stringing me along pretending that you were looking into it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, Duncan. It's just that there's no point in placing a range block, which is intended to stop anons editing, if it's lifted the moment an anon says they can't edit.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (To DuncanHill) - Not quite. Two different things. Most innocent editors have an account (as you have) and can use it for an anon-only rangeblock, or are not going to "appeal" as they've done nothing wrong, they need to ask to bypass it. Appeal would only be relevant for users intended to be blocked, who (if rangeblocked) will almost always know who they are. There are cases where appeal of a range block is needed, I've listed a few, not least the rangeblock's intended target ("anyone can request unblock and promise to behave"). Those are the ones it's needed for, not "innocents" or those with accounts. The latter need to login or be given bypass information instead. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel it important to point out that the template also directs users blocked with {{checkuserblock}} to the form used to request an account via the WP:ACC process. We routinely handle such requests with the aid of a friendly CU with access to the tool and turnaround time is fairly swift. We also handle {{anonblock}}s, rangeblocks etc. You name it, we deal with it. All in a day's work. Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Long term IP vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 years by User:Beetstra. Jujutacular ^talk 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

150.176.249.100 (talk · contribs): vandalizing has continued after a recent release from a 6 month block. Suggest another block of longer duration. Thoughts? Jujutacular ^talk 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification of users about posts on this board - archived, decision required

Resolved

 – Motion carried, changes made to header of page and edit notice. Policy in effect. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215#Notification_of_users_about_posts_on_this_board has been archived without resolution. Can a neutral admin evaluate the discussion/consensus and carry out the appropiate actions? Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read it as an uninvolved admin: it should be implemented. I am not totally au fait with template creation so would appreciate guidance on what needs doing. Fences&Windows 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A start. –xeno^talk 00:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Great start, Xeno! But what about, "Inform other users..."? No "must", no bold text; and no "please". More "middle-of-the-road"... Doc9871 (talk) 05:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly updated it to reflect the current ANI wording, bolded the "must notify" and included the notification template code. We might still need to sort the edit notice though. Exxolon (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant template (I think) is at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard - however it requires an admin to edit, I cannot do it. Exxolon (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to be as simple as adding the following code from the ANI notice to the bottom (with a slight change so the correct notification template is given)

{{tmbox|type=content|text=You '''must notify''' any user that you discuss. You may use {{tlsx|AN-notice}} to do so.<br />Also, please '''provide links and [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] here''' to involved pages and editors.}}

which should produce

Line breaks may also be needed of course.Exxolon (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the edit notice. Fences&Windows 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Exxolon (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved?

I think that covers the main areas that require doing. Can we mark resolved? Exxolon (talk) 20:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Marking resolved, let's see how it goes in practice. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (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.

Recalcitrant user

LAVINA4194 (talk · contribs) has consistently created articles about Ohio state-level politicians that use as their only reference a link to a Google books search result, that does not actually produce any meaningful results about the politician in question. Example pages include

• Margaret Dennison
• Larry Nord
• Tom Seese
• Tom Watkins (Akron)

He has been notified of this on several occasions, as well as his practice of miscategorizing pages. Attempts to engage him in dialog at his talk page have gone unanswered. According to his edit history, this user has not engaged any other user in dialog in any talk space. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• He created another page about ten minutes ago with a valid reference and appropriate categories. Something to keep an eye on but seems like he means well. J04n(talk page) 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• He may mean well, but he is making a lot of work for other editors and won't take any advice, nor even engage in the dialog. My ethics teacher liked to tell the story of the nurse who accidentally gave the patient drano instead of medicine. She meant well, but... WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't really equate this guy creating these articles with that - one is a minor problem, the other would be criminal negligence. Exxolon (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have stretched the metaphor somewhat, but LAVINA's actions are not really a "minor problem" as far as Wikipedia is concerned because he is essentially creating unreferenced BLPs. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've only looked at Seese, but I see no big problem with it. He's plainly citing a page from a directory of state representatives in 1994, so we can assume that Seese is included therein; it's quite possible that LAVINA4194 owns the original book and is treating it as an online source so that the rest of us can see something about it. If the remaining articles are like it, I don't see any reason to treat these as unreferenced BLPs. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's not bite. Getting on a newbie for not adding categories is over the top. It would be nice if he responded on the talk page but this is not a major problem. J04n(talk page) 21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback!

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

---

- As Wikipedia's Admins have decided in their limited wisdom to prevent me having access to roll back, would they please be more attentive to their duties to pages in future [94]. I do not expect to see this sort of thing hanging around for hours in future. Thank you.  Giacomo  20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, You don't need rollback to get rid of vandalism, as you clearly did. I'm not an admin, but I have rollback, and can't catch every bit of vandalism. Thanks for fixing the vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you can make a personal attack on thousands of admins, but suggesting they all have "limited wisdom" isn't exactly collegial. Exxolon (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, a nigh-invisible vandalism persisted for hours! If only someone could manually click the previous diff and hit save! Whoever will save us, surely not any admins, for they busy themselves frolicking in the vale ... wait, what is that upon yon hill? Our saviour, with an edit button and a keyboard? Hark, we are saved! Wait... kind sir, it was you who delivered us from this evil? Blessed be! And without rollback, even! Truly, you are a child of God. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure it does not happen again please Golbez. Fortunately, now I am restored to you all, but I don't have time to do all the admin's jobs. Perhaps a little less time expending all of your energies here and elsewhere and more time on the encyclopedia will ensure these things don't happen again.  Giacomo  20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

With 3 million articles and me just one poor, desperate mortal, I rely on you, mine saviour, to point out the vandalisms and smite them downe. --Golbez (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

But enough with that pratter, since when is reverting vandalism solely an administrator's job? If you're an editor, and editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, then improve it by removing vandalism. I don't remember it being in the charter that only people with the bit were allowed to remove vandalism. In fact, it's usually "he who smelt it, edits it out". Instead of bitching about other people not cleaning up vandalism, why don't you do your job as an editor here to improve the pedia and happily clean it up yourself. --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Golbez, enough prattle here. I see you in threads above. Go swat vandals and be an admin!  Giacomo  20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I do, with surprising dedication. But either way, I thank you for reverting the vandalism you did, though I don't understand why you felt the need to share it with the rest of us. We get it, you're bitter, do you want a cookie? --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Giacomo, be fair. I don't think admins can be expected to stay awake, let alone use rollback, on a day when AN and ANI are so excruciatingly boring as today. [/me falls asleep. ] Bishonen | talk 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC).

Boring? - only boring people are ever bored! However, reverting vandalsim is boring which is why Admins are so suited to it and I am not. However, my sojourns in the sunshine are now completed and Wikipedia can have my undivided attention. However, on my return, I am surprised to find vandalism being permitted to remain unchecked, while Admins tediously and endlessly pontificate here instead of working as they claimed in the RFAs they wished to do. What a good thing I am back with time on my hands to redress these matters.  Giacomo  21:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed the exciting day when you became bitter against admins. God knows that admins aren't perfect and that they still make plenty of mistakes, but why all the hate?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:36, 3 August 2010 (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.

Discount Tire Company

Resolved

Can someone please undelete Discount Tire Company so I can work on improving it? I'm certain that the article had at least one source when it was prod-deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Restored by default as a contested PROD. Courcelles (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note, the most recent deletion of this article was out-of-process, since it was proposed for deletion back in 2007 which was contested, and any further deletion attempts are considered controversial. I've added the oldprodfull template to the talk page to avoid a similar mistake in the future. -- Atama頭 00:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested page moves.

There is a requested page move at Talk:List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs, which appears to have no oppostion. The request had been in the back log of WP:RM for a while now, so I looked it over and closed the discussion, but it appears that the page is move protected for some reason, and it requires admin tools to move.

Also, there is a page move requested at Talk:Philadelphia Convention, which is also in the back log at WP:RM, which has no opposition. Thsi move also requires admin tools to make.

If someone with tools could review these requests, it would be helpful. Thank You.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• List of surviving F-4 Phantom IIs done. Philadelphia Convention not done, because I cannot in good conscience do a page move based upon a consensus that I think is wholly ill-informed. There are plenty of history and constitutional law books that call this the Philadelphia Convention (The first three pages of Google Books results for "philadelphia convention" 1787 all do.), and a consensus of just two people on a wiki saying "I've never heard it called that." doesn't overrule that for me. Another administrator might be willing to take this action. Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I couldn't ask anyone to do something that don't feel is right, but remember that according to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions that no minimum participation is required for requested moves. And there was no opposition.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. This is an instance of where I know the encyclopaedia to be right, and the consensus to be wrong, and can back that up. (Even though the discussion is closed, for future reference I've put a small sampling of the many books on this subject that call this the Philadelphia Convention on the talk page, and cited a supporting source for some of the previously not explicitly sourced prose in the article's introduction in the article, to boot.) So I choose not to use my tools to enact a discussion closure. I say that it's called this in plenty of history and law books with my ordinary editor hat on. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the discussion has been closed, but I am a bit disturbed in some of your wording above. It almost makes it look like your saying that I don't care about consensus, because your right and I'm wrong.. Thats not exactly how an admin should behave, if you get my drift. I came to this page for help on a page move, yet not only was that not completed by the admin who looked at the page, decide to ignore unanamous consensus. By going to the page as an uninvolved admin, then not only deciding that everyone else is wrong and you are right, may be unethical. But as the discussion wasn't officially closed by said admin, there may be no violation of wikipedia policy.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an admin not performing an admin action can be considered unethical. We are under no requirement to do anything here. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. Yet there were no objections after ten days, until an uninvolved admin, whose job it was to determine consensus decided that the unanamous consensus was wrong. Doesn't this sound like just about every single discussion where one user decides that everyone is wrong even though consenus seems to be against him? Like I said before, most likely not a policy violation, it just stinks to high heaven.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well he didn't just say "I'm right, they're wrong" - he disputed the outcome and backed it up with sources proving the consensus was erroneous. The two supporters didn't cite any sources or give any credible arguments - it's not just about the number of people in support or opposition, it's also the quality of their comments/arguments. The correct thing to do here would be to go and find sources supporting the move (and the other editors should also do so) then relist for move with better evidence the move is correct. Exxolon (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He disagreed with the consensus and had no obligation to act on its behalf. It's definitely not a policy violation and it doesn't stink one bit; he is not obligated to do a single thing. He looked, he chose not to act on it, and spoke his mind. In fact, it almost seems like you're complaining about that; "There were no objections after ten days, until someone came along and spoke against the consensus, with multiple sources backing him up". Even admins are allowed to have an opinon. Now, if he had reversed the move after it had happened, then you might have a point, but he didn't - he discussed it. He did nothing, which you would be hard pressed to justify calling an ethical violation. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Um...its still open, so what is the next step, other than refuting and finding sources? It seems to me that a unanamous conclusion wouldn't have needed this musch drama.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Either wait for admin to move it or, if none are forthcoming, gather better consensus than two people. Since admins are not obligated to do anything, if none are willing to move the article then that's a pretty broad consensus unto itself. --Golbez (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be closed as "move contrary to sources - not done" or something. If you want to propose the move again, you'll need to come up with sources showing the new title is the best/most common/most appropiate name, sufficient to outweigh the sources already quoted that support leaving it at the current title. Exxolon (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've relisted it, to give people the chance to come up with better arguments than "I've never heard of it". Looking at the names used in reliable sources would be a start. Fences&Windows 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be the first time an unopposed page move request has ever been relisted. Have I really seen it all, or is there more to come?--Jojhutton (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the closing admin opposed it if you want to get technical. Let it go, I think he made the right call. Exxolon (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It was never closed, if you want to get technical. If it was closed, then that would have been highly wrong, and technically a breach of admin powers, as there was absolutely no opposition at the time of review. I'm not saying that any "powers" have been misused, but this sure does come awfully close.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not moving an article = abuse of powers? I've never heard of someone abusing their power by doing nothing. --Golbez (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncle G's comment was sufficient to destroy the apparent consensus. He decided not to close it and to instead comment, and I decided to relist. There's no abuse here! Stop complaining, and get on with actually demonstrating that the new title is the common usage and not ambiguous. Fences&Windows 03:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Need more admins to weigh in on this issue

I've been aware for some time that User:Daniel Case and myself are both regular reviewers of reports at WP:UAA that don't really see eye to eye on how to interpret the username policy in certain situations, but although we have disagreed a bit in the past it's never really come to a head and manifested itself in and out-and-out disagreement. The case of User:Ericstalin has broken that pattern. Rather than pontificate about it here I'll just give you the facts and ask for any interested party to comment.

• Initial (bot) report on the name and subsequent discussion at UAA :[95]

• My comment's on Daniel's talk page:[96]

• His reply :[97]

The core issue here as I see it as that what is offensive is highly subjective. I'm really not sure how to resolve this, and I considered WP:RFCN, but that is intended to discuss matters with the user themselves if they are refusing to change their name, and discussions at the username policy talk page tend move rather slowly, and I'm really looking for input beyond just the UAA regulars. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you and Daniel need to agree to disagree on this one, and wait and see what the user's reaction is. This is not a clear-cut case; since the tag has been placed on the user's talk page, let's see what the reaction is. If the user agrees with the point and either stops editing (a possibility) or requests a new username, then it will seem Daniel's point of view will prevail. If the user protests, then we have to evaluate the discussion and see which way to go. My own personal opinion is that it wasn't worth slapping a tag over, but on the other hand, it's not worth a whole lot of discussion now that it's been done.

As to the wider point of "how do we determine once and for all which ones qualify as offensive and must absolutely be tagged?" well, I'm not sure you'll ever get satisfaction on that point. Sorry I can't offer anything there; it's always a bit of a judgment call around here. C'est la vie.  Frank  |  talk  20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A name like "Eric Stalin" should not be considered offensive without further information about the person (does he start out vandalizing, etc.) Apparently, there have been a number of people with the name of Stalin since Joseph Stalin led the USSR. If there is even a hint that the user might end up editing in good faith, then there is no reason to block, just leave them alone. If they start vandalizing, that's not the end of the world, just block them instantly. If they start editing in good faith, then you didn't scare them off. NW (Talk) 20:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If I remember rightly Stalin was only added to the username bot blacklist because Runtshit had a habit of using it, and we block Runtshit for vandalism. There's nothing inherently offensive or policy-violating about that name. If he starts calling for millions to be killed, then it would be worth a second look. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But what if it's millions of 4chan editors?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought there were only 9000? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No, there are definitely OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, all I did was give the guy a {{uw-username}}. Since his edits had been OK, I felt he might be amenable to seeing the issue with his username and changing it. It's not like I blocked him for that.

I am still unpersuaded by Beeblebrox's arguments, or any suggestion that somehow nobody would find this offensive. I can imagine a lot of our editors from former Soviet republics or Eastern Europe wouldn't be so forgiving either. I really don't think there have been enough other people with the name "Stalin" for it to be seen as anything other than the dictator. To be honest, as much as I respect Beeblebrox as a fellow admin and defer to his judgement on most matters, I found his arguments for why we should completely ignore this to be morally blinkered at best and repulsive at worst. I was half expecting him to next tell me about how Stalin industrialized the USSR in record time (as indeed he did, on the backs of countless unnamed corpses buried under this, this and this. And here.

Anyway ... the fact that it was put on the bot blacklist because Runtshit used it a lot does not mean that other sockpuppeteer/trolls won't. Its history and associations make it inherently attractive for such disruptive purposes, as the end of the above conversation suggests (and I would note that we tend to block any username incorporating a 4chan /b/ meme, including those two character combinations, on sight). And we are right not to let such uses pass without at least comment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No arguments from me that Joseph Stalin was not a bad guy, but we should keep in mind that there might not be an issue with his username for him to see, as per the president of this French company or this Duke University researcher (p. 17). Stalin seems to be a rare surname these days, but it is still in use. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably a Swede, see also sv:Kerstin-Maria Stalín. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't think that saying you "just" put a tag on their userpage accusing them of representing "a feared and loathed tyrant" is a very good counter argument. As I have tried to point out before, the majority of users who receive a notice like that as their first interaction on Wikipedia are never heard from again. And all because their username might represent something that some users might be offended by. Which concern is more important: retaining a new editor who up until they got this notice had been making valid contributions, or protecting users from seeing a word that might offend them even though the connection to Josef Stalin is purely hypothetical? At the very least the language in the notice could have been milder, as it was posted it essentially assumed the user was deliberately trying to represent the Stalin, instead of assuming good faith. What I find puzzling about this, Daniel, is that you seem willing to stretch AGF to rather absurd extremes on other username issues, such as names containing "cock," but you went straight to assuming the very worst with this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel's message on the editor's talk page looks fine to me. As there's nothing wrong with the editor's contributions there's no reason at all to implement a block, but it would be good if the editor could explain why they chose this name given that it is likely to offend some editors. I'd leave a similar message for anyone calling themselves User:Erichitler, User:Ericpolpot, User:Ericidiamin, etc. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward saying that this shouldn't be considered a problematic username. While unlikely, it's possible that this guy's real name is Eric Stalin and that he decided to register it as his username. Since Daniel Case has shown examples of users with such usernames quickly producing vandalism, I'd advise one or the other of you two UAA admins to watch Eric's contributions and not be hesitant to warn or block; however, unless problems happen, I don't think that you should be any harder on him than you would someone who had just registered my username if I didn't have it first. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Eric has made four edits, all to Kilrush; none of them have been particularly good (here they are, all together), but it's not what I'd call vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They look like perfectly routine and good-faith contributions from a new editor to me. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what I mean. Not very helpful, but we don't expect new users to know policy details. What's more, he adds a URL to the references section in what seems to me to be an obvious attempt to provide a source; that's not something I expect from a vandal, but what I expect from an inexperienced new editor who wants to help Wikipedia. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

A moment of Googling shows that there is a Facebook user named Eric Stalin, and there is an auto parts company whose president is named Eric Stalin. Also numerous other people in business with surname Stalin. One ought not to leap to conclusions. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the name "Eric Stalin" by itself is not disruptive, unless the editor then engages in advocacy for the Soviet dictator of that name or is otherwise disruptive. But in the case of any disagreement whatsoever about a username, the place to go is WP:RFCN, I'd have thought.  Sandstein  09:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

RFCN is for discussing the username with the user themselves. They haven't been heard from since getting the username discussion message on their talk page, which is completely typical of such cases, which is really the larger issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looking at the results so far, I think we can say a consensus is emerging that there is not a real problem with this user name. While I understand Daniel's concern that it may represent Josef Stalin, there is nothing to substantiate that. Even if we were to grant that there was a possible concern, the language used in the discussion notice could certainly have been milder as it essentially was an assumption of bad faith where none was manifest. I think we both touched a sore spot here. Daniel obviously has strong feelings about Stalin, and I admit I have a sore spot regarding any suggestion that anyone is/was as bad as Hitler, as I feel it belittles the terrible evils perpetrated by the nazis. This does not mean I sanction the murderous policies of Stalinism, rather I don't see them as the same kind of genocidal evil that Hitler represented. More to the point though, I don't see any deliberate representation of Stalinism inherent in this user name, and it seems others don't see it either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say there's no real consensus for doing anything more, or anything less, than what I did. Regarding the comparative aspect, I think it's beside the point to suggest there is some sort of ultimate evil of all time among oppressive dictators. It is absurd to argue that Stalin or Hitler was worse (as Alexander Solzhenitsyn put it "Well, I suppose at least we didn't have gas chambers") when, to me, the point is that neither should be acceptable as a username or component thereof on this user-edited online encyclopedia ... they both have the potential to cause too much offense no matter what the user's intent is. We can see this with "Hitler"; I don't see what save true historical ignorance keeps anyone from seeing the same as for Stalin. (And I might have similar problems with "Eric Mussolini" as well, to be honest). Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So if Alessandra Mussolini wanted to contribute to Wikipedia under her own name, we should tell her "Sorry, you can't do it because of your grandfather"? I tend to think we should err on the side of prohibiting usernames rather than allowing them, when there's a real issue with the username - but prohibiting some user from using their real name is generally absurd, and prohibiting what might be the user's real name without evidence to the contrary is caring about something that we shouldn't, in the absence of a behavioral problem. If the user starts demanding that we round up the kulaks and make them contribute their piece in a farming camp, then we can worry about the connotations of their username - but we shouldn't before then. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

She would be allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under that name because it's her own real name, which is always allowed, and thus any discussion of that as a possibly-blockable name is moot. If the editor in question really is named Eric Stalin, and he really wanted to edit under that name, I kind of think he would have left a talk page message or emailed me about that (and if it is his real name, I'm sure getting a complaint about it on Wikipedia is hardly the worst grief it's ever brought him to). That is when I would assume good faith. Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Daniel, I really wish you would give some consideration to the idea that the exact wording you used in your message left no room for the possibility of good faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I didn't think there was much. I remain unconvinced that it's a viable name outside the dictator's; there are few other people with that name listed at the article, and the most prominent mentioned here, the Indian politician, has it as a first name that was explicitly derived from the Soviet dictator (I suppose he must have been a red-diaper baby. Why he didn't change it before going into politics I don't know, but that's just me). It is certainly, to me, an improbable enough name in the English-speaking world that I believe plenty of other people would have taken it as a pseudonym as well.

By contrast, I wouldn't block an "Ericlenin" because, although you could say many bad things about Ilyich, there is not the consensus for it being in bad taste that I believe there would be. Nor would I block or even warn a "David Berkowitz" since there are plenty of people with that name for it not to be immediately associated with the serial killer (OTOH, I'd want some proof that "Jeffrey Dahmer" was that person's real name). Daniel Case (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a viable name outside of the dictator's. Again, I link the president of this French company and this Duke University researcher (p. 17). Both of them are named "Eric Stalin". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Amusing. One of your allies in another username-related discussion thinks I'm too forgiving; here you think I'm being too strict. But anyway ...

My point is not that nobody would be named Stalin. Apparently some people are. It is that the probability of that being an actual personal name given its historical associations is low enough that an administrator could be forgiven for assuming it to be a troll pseudonym (or a sleeper troll account). Yes, apparently there are actually some people named Hitler in the USA (also see this discussion thread). Would an administrator not knowing that be castigated with a long AN thread for leaving a note on the page of a new user who had otherwise edited innocuously suggesting that might not be a good username? I am being asked to assume good faith yet none is being assumed regarding my (rather mild) actions.

I prefer not to think of people as "allies" when we are in agreement, as it kind of implies the opposite when we are not. We're simply reasonable people discussing administration of a rather large and complex website, and it stands to reason that we won't always see eye to eye. That said, I don't know that anybody is failing to assume good faith of your note, simply pointing out that you might not have considered all aspects. (Certainly I don't mean to imply that you deliberately took a dim view of this fellow. I know from our prior discussions that biting is a concern of yours.) I wonder if you might consider softening your note, though, at least with respect to "the name of a feared and loathed tyrant". If "Stalin" is this fellow's real name, it might not be the most pleasant return for him, as he's likely aware of the association. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I concede that my message failed to acknowledge the possibility that it was a real name, which I was unaware of at the time. As a result in the future when messaging such names I will ask if it's a real name. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the thing with the Indian names: there is a weird cultural thing over there where it's ok to re-use the name of somebody famous, or infamous, without really being "connected" with them. It's seen more as a way of using the fame of their name without really ideologically allying yourself with them. The perfect example is the now-renamed Hitlers' Cross restaurant, where the owner just wanted people to know he was "different, like Adolf Hitler was different." Very bizarre but apparently not all that uncommon over there. I really didn't intend for this to be a fight between me and you, all I wanted was some wider input from the community on this because we were obviously not going to come to an agreement on the subject. I'm sorry you've taken it so personally and apparently think of me as an enemy who is gathering his allies against you, that's not at all what I had intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I let it get this way. I have, in my response to Moonriddengirl above, conceded one of your points and explained what I'll do differently in the future. I just felt a little ganged-up on, that's all. Let's move on. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, when people disagree with your UAA calls, they tend to gang up on you. I've learned my lesson; I've been chased away from UAA (and from most other admin work, for that matter). --Rschen7754 07:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My Topic Ban

I am Now Able To Appeal. Wher Should I Appeal? OttomanJackson 01:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

Depends. Who issued the topic ban? What event was it issued for? What do you plan to do differently in regards to the articles you are banned from? What evidence can you show, via editing in areas outside of your topic ban, that you have changed the way you behave so that we can have real evidence that the same problematic behavior will not return? We'll need real answers to these questions before we can decide... --Jayron32 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron. Copied from Editing Restrictions "OttomanJackson (talk • contribs • logs) is banned from making any edits to content relating to Michael Jackson, including the creation of or edits to articles on Jackson's songs, or the insertion or changing of material related to Jackson in other articles. Is open to review by community consensus after one month."

I, OttomanJackson, promise to not create Articles on MJ song without consensue, not to redirect Beatles songs without consenus, and to not sockpuppet. OttomanJackson 01:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, now on to the other parts. Can you direct us to other work you have done, outside of this area, for us to judge to see if you have learned from your prior mistakes? --Jayron32 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Look at Large Denominations of United States Currency and Pants on the Ground. Thanks. OttomanJackson 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

I don't have much issue with the topic ban being removed, but it would be on the condition that, if you do anything that led to the ban (that you listed above in your promise), you will be indefinitely blocked—a one-strike-and-you're-out condition. Other than that, please try not to put so many images in the currency article (maybe read the MOS as the title should not have been capitalized), and put a link to your user page, user talk page, or both in your signature per WP:Signatures. Thanks, —fetch·comms 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Struck, see comment below. —fetch·comms 21:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dies this mean my ban is lifted? Thanks! OttomanJackson User:OttomanJackson 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)

Sort your signature out also. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

So, will this be lifted? It is still listed at the editing restrictions section at the moment and the above is not a particularly thorough sample of consensus. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban discussion ended on June 30. [98]. I would suggest maintaining the topic ban.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay guys, Please use Remove or Keep for clarity. I will be good I promise User:OttomanJackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.54.202 (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep ban in place. Out of curiosity, Ottoman, why do you keep using the IP that signed your comment above? Do you forget to sign in and out between the two accounts? I don't think you deny that both are you, but unblock requests like "IP address is shared by multiple people, I did not sockpuppet" aren't very encouraging... Doc9871 (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This statement is similarly discouraging, IMO... Doc9871 (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI - please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OttomanJackson. Doc9871 (talk) 02:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Keep ban in place. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep ban in place I just struck my comment above because of the concerns with using IPs to edit when warned only to use one account. —fetch·comms 21:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• No IPs. Period. One and only one account, which is User:OttomanJackson. Violations enforceable by blocks. –MuZemike 04:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think the SPI may have been closed a "bit" prematurely[99] (2 minutes after MuZemike's comment? Really?). However, I agree that the main focus for now should be at this AN thread, and the greater topic ban. No more IPs, right? Ever, even after being warned/blocked? OttomanJackson was created nearly four months after 24.15.54.202, it should again be noted. The other IP: one month after OttomanJackson's creation. Promises not to sock anymore; and yet the older IP signs in for him after this promise? The IPs, at least, should be blocked per this... Doc9871 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and block indefinitely His signature is broken or coded incorrectly. When he signs, the signature has no links to his user and/or talk pages. Also, for some reason the bot that autosigns for people who forget to sign their posts is tagging his entries. This needs to be resolved. I am changing my vote to oppose and ask that this user be blocked indefinitely. He has uploaded at least two copyright violations to Wikipedia. He has images of a couple of counterfeit US bills on his userpage and claims on the image pages that he created them himself, however a search using TinEye shows that both of these images appear throughout the internet. Images in question are [:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Series1996$100usnote.jpg] and [:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cleveland_bill.jpg]. He also claims the $100 bill was discontinued in 1971, which is a baldfaced lie. I don't trust this person. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Unban discussion for User:Drew R. Smith

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.

Based on this discussion, I have declined his unblock request for now, and recommended that he spend some time working at a sister project repairing his reputation. --Jayron32 06:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• Relevent link to initial banning discussion: [100].
• Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The initial ban took place in February, 2010. The user (at this account at least) appears to have abided by the spirit of Wikipedia:Standard Offer in having stayed away for many months. I am officially neutral on the issue, as I was uninvolved initially. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The kinds of things he was banned for are kind of scary. The note on his userpage indicates massive copyright violations and it also appears he was socking as recently as last March [101]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't trust Drew at all, but he seems to mainly have kept to the standard offer guidelines. If he's unblocked, I'd prefer to see a checkuser beforehand, to confirm that no socking has taken place. I'm not sure he'll be a positive here, but am not passionate enough about this to oppose. AniMate 03:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support He seems to have kept to the standard offer guidelines and many of the things he did before the ban were possitive contributions (such as attempting to restart the AQF newsleter). However I think a checkuser would be a realy good idea and that if he is unbanned he should be monitored clousely.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having read the explanation he gives on his talk page, it is just one long list of "I lost it. I lost it again. For no good reason, I then lost it yet again. Then I started with sockpuppets. But my other edits were good, if you don't count the many copyright violations." I have no confidence that the problematic behaviour would suddenly stop because we are six months later. I also generally oppose the "standard offer" (which is an essay, not a guideline), we spend way too much time on giving people chance after chance simply because exceptionally someone comes back and becomes a somewhat positive contributor. people get their second and third chances when they return from earlier blocks, there is no need to give them yet another chance. Fram (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I'm leaning towards opposing this request mainly as the editor hasn't said in their statement what they intend to edit and how we will know that they're not falsifying sources or violating copyright. I'd be interested in seeing comments from editors who were involved with this editor, as it appears that he caused them a lot of serious problems. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. He needs to demonstrate understanding of the copyright policy before we should even consider unbanning him. MER-C 13:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with MER-C on this; before we can unban this user, they should convince us they now understand our copyright policy and won't violate it again. As far as I'm concerned, they've not done it yet. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have little faith in anyone that, in response to a page being deleted, "took to trolling". This, combined with the faking of the reference shows me that he is easily swayed to dishonest actions, which is about as far from compatible with this project as you can get. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice that some editors commented above that they would like to hear from editors who have been involved with Drew, and that would include me. Oh, this is tough for me. I was one of the first editors to interact with him, when he first came to the project, and I have a very warm place in my heart for him for his genuinely good work at WP:AQF. On the other hand, I know about the things that got him banned, and if this were anyone I had not interacted with personally, I would be saying not just no, but hell no, to a second chance. I guess I would lean towards oppose, but I could probably be talked into some sort of a plan for a return subject to restrictions. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Has the user been participating (constructively) in other Wikimedia projects since his ban here? –xeno^talk 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Good question. Positive contributions at another project go a long way to proving reform. Exxolon (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Nuke This. Drew has been a disruptive user all along, and I rather suspect he's been socking again. Drew is just a troll. Very Involved == Very Knowledgeable, Jack Merridew 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Did the pot just call the kettle black?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.147.169 (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  You're a troll, too.^diff Jack Merridew 22:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Can we avoid using that term? "Disruptive User" is fine, "Troll" just inflames the situation without informing it. Exxolon (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  I prefer troll. "Disruptive user" sounds like a euphemism invented by a PR firm. Protonk (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Haven't you noticed that the site is awash with them? Seems you may not know Drew. I do. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question What's to stop this person from just creating a new account and moving on from there. I mean I know what a ban is, but if this person is really committed to not being disruptive, then he could most likely do that, and its quite possible that this has already happened.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  If they do that and get caught, it'll be even longer before the community will consider unbanning them. –xeno^talk 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

  Then I suggest a quick check user on this account and to make sure. If it comes up clean then I see no reason for continuing the ban.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Why? He sockpuppeted and did horrific Copy violations. Don't let him stay. --Rockstonetalk to me! 01:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per MER-C and Fram. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Puppy! There you are! Hey! Don't go away again, now! Bishonen | talk 23:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC).
• Lets do a chekuser to see if he has socked any more, if not then I see no reson why to keep him banned.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment transcluded from Drew's talkpage

"I have made positive contributions to wikinews under the same username, though not regularly, only when something newsworthy happened in my area. And I believe I contributed to wikispecies as well, but I'm can't remember. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)"

Exxolon (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

His recent contributions to Wikinews [102] on the subject of the Hawaii Makua Valley brush fire look constructive. Judging from the above discussion, it doesn't appear the community is ready to welcome Drew back to en.wiki, but I suspect if he contributes more regularly on other projects for another 3-6 months (obviously without socking here) then this could be revisited, perhaps making a proposal for a limited return with strict editing restrictions and close mentorship. –xeno^talk 12:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno. I think that summary gets it exactly right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2010 (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.

Block review: User:Yobot

Yobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights)

Magioladitis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I am seeking a review of an indefinite block I have just placed on User:Yobot, a bot operated by User:Magioladitis. Magioladitis is an administrator and valuable member of the WP:AWB development team; however, he often operates his bot in a manner not compliant with WP:AWB#Rules of use and the bot policy. The most recent incident was a run that was supposedly intended to tag Category:1st-century people as "|living=no"; however, many of these individuals were already tagged as such. The result was the bot was simply committing minor, insignificant edits such as bypassing template redirects [103] [104] or mere general fixes [105]. Edits like this are insignificant and should not be the sole reason to edit a page: they are distracting to other editors and may place unnecessary strain on servers. This has been brought up to Magioladitis countless times in the past. I welcome comments as to the block, and suggestions for next steps. –xeno^talk 14:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Yobot isn't skipping pages that are already tagged. This was always happening in the past. This is maybe to recent changes to plugin's code. If you check Yobot's edits: All edits to 3rd-18th century people are ok because are compared to Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I apologise for the mistake but it wasn't intentional. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an excuse you have offered in the past when your bot was found to be making insignificant edits: that you didn't realize your bot was doing something it shouldn't have been. Operating a bot requires a duty of care to ensure that it is operating in a manner compliant with relevant rules, guidelines, and policies. You can't just "set it and forget it" unless you've made sure that it will be compliant. –xeno^talk 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can publish the settings file in a sub-page if you like. I think this happened after I added all the template replacement's from Rich's temp sub-page. I 'll find my last run on the same issue to prove that I was doing it correctly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again: you and you alone are responsible for the bot's action. You can't let it run amok and claim broken tools later. AWB has an option to "Preview the diff in bot mode" and to set a delay for edits. In this fashion, you can keep an eye on the edit preview to ensure that the bot isn't misbehaving. –xeno^talk 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake was to change methods in the middle of session. Comparing with the tracking category was 100% safe. I switched to something I haven't tested with the new settings file. Apparently, I haven't checked "Skip if plugin doesn't make any change". I published User:Yobot/Task 9 code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are only so many times that you can invoke Hanlon's razor as an excuse for bad bot behaviour. I have unblocked the bot, but will block it again without warning if it commits further insignificant edits. –xeno^talk 15:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Independent of the block, this Yobot edit [106] appeared on my watchlist today. AWB bots are not permitted to make so-called "trivial" edits such as only replacing redirects. Recently, several people (including me) have asked M. to make sure the bot is configured to avoid trivial edits, because they have been happening unusually often.

I think that we should work out some kind of double-check within AWB that prevents the bot from making this sort of edit. For example, certain replacements could set a "this edit is nontrivial" flag, and only edits with that flag would be saved. A system like that would make the bot much less likely to save trivial edits.

It's customary that, if the bot operator agrees to stop the problematic task altogether until it is fixed, the bot can be unblocked. However, this would mean the bot will not run this task until there is something in place to detect trivial edits and prevent them from being saved, because the system is apparently very fragile regarding trivial edits.

If M. agrees to that, I think that unblocking the bot is reasonable to let it perform other tasks. In the longer term, it might be worth splitting the bot tasks to several accounts so that they can operate independently. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is already possible (and exceedingly simple) to mark the redirect-bypass shown in that edit as a "minor" find and replace, and then to set the option to "skip if only minor replacement made". –xeno^talk 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that, in bot mode, it should be the default. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologise again. As a safety net I can do the following. The code will be online in my bot's page and everybody can check changes in the code. I make many changes to my settings files depending on the feedback I get and/or AWB code's changes. Instead of using settings file from my computer I 'll load the version found in the sub-page. Two last sessions of tagging biography articles were flueless because they ran inside Category:Biography articles without living parameter (June 12-13, 2010). I can also give some tasks I do to other bots if I asked. I did voluntarily in March by giving tagging of talk pages of recently created biographies of living people to LaraBot.

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests#Save and load settings from wiki page! It would be ideal if you just ensured that due diligence has been performed - that all the proper checkboxes are set, and that you watch the bot in the initial stages of any run to be sure it isn't doing something daft. –xeno^talk 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @CBM: It would be possible to set non-advanced find and replaces as minor by default; but for the present case, the partial settings files for the banner normalization imported by Mag did not have these marked as minor (though it's a simple find & replace job in a text editor to set the minor checkbox for all these lines). In the end, this is still an issue that requires a commitment from the bot operator to ensure their bot is compliant. That being said, this is slightly off topic and discussion of this suggestion should probably be continued at WT:AWB. –xeno^talk 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Activating_auto-mode_disactivates_N.2FC_im_Plugin -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

+1 for Carl and xeno. Just listen to them, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bug fixed in revision 6954 of AWB. Check in Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 17#Activating auto-mode disactivates N/C im Plugin. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bot is malfunctioning, so keep it blocked until it can edit in compliance with the approval request parameters. When it can do so (I'm unsure if it can per the comment immediately above), unblock it; no harm done. I won't be assuming any bad faith on the part of Magioladitis, and would encourage others to follow suit. AGK 12:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

After the bug fix Yobot can work properly again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests

The {{editprotected}} category is backlogged, but most of the requests require someone with sound knowledge of templates and markup. If any admins with such knowledge would take a look, it would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Current Events

An IP has edited the Current Events page of January 5, 2010. While the edit seems to be OK, I'm wondering if anyone is watchlisting these pages, and how we can prevent possible vandalism or other mischief there.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with that edit, nor any reason to stop IPs from editing such pages. If vandalism proves to be a problem, we have the means to deal with it. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer! Just wanted to bring this to the attention of admins just in case no one would watch these pages. But if people do watch at least a significant part of these pages, then a potential vandalism problem would probably be identified.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Two and a half year block of ISP for low-income users

NOTE: per this conversation with bureaucrat Xeno, I am bringing this issue up at the Administrators' noticeboard. I am contacting all the users that reviewed either a)the initial block and/or b)the block lift, on their talk pages.

Appreciation
This is absolutely the most important point of this message. I want to publicly thank Xeno for reviewing the indefinite rangeblocks. If Xeno had not reviewed the indefinite rangeblocks, I would still be blocked as I have not figured out how to create an account through alternate means as was suggested in the initial blocking. Thank you, Xeno. You are a valuable asset to Wikipedia. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Overview
During a period of concern about vandalism, which included heavy blocking, an ISP for low-income users was rangeblocked. This block lasted for two and a half years before it was lifted.

Reason for initial block
NoCharge was not blocked because of massive vandalism from multiple users. It was not even blocked for a single specific vandalism incident. Instead it was preemptively blocked because it was thought that vandals might possibly find out that it was a free service. I believe it started as a conversation about free trial accounts at Internet providers and that those accounts could possibly be used for vandalism. Somebody mentioned that NoCharge was free and said it could possibly be used as a proxy. Once it was labeled as a proxy, it was closed as being a proxy even though it hadn't been used as such.

Purpose
I want to let people know that heavy-handed decisions can have unintended consequences which include enormous collateral damage to Wikipedia's volunteers.

Admission of ignorance
I am a new user and am still learning my way around. I am not familiar with how things work around here, so I am speaking from a position of ignorance in that regard. Any education people can provide me is greatly appreciated. Thank you. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Admission of bias
I am one of many casualties of this rangeblock so my point of view is highly biased. Therefore, I shall refrain from joining in on this conversation except to provide details and answer questions. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Details
During mid to late 2007, there was great concern about vandalism on Wikipedia. This is the period when JarlaxleArtemis changed his name to Grawp and was highly active. A large number of blocks happened during this period. Many of these went unnoticed, others, like the block of User:!!, were highly visible and caused many users to question how freely people were blocking.

About two weeks before User:!! was blocked, NoCharge.com - the entire ISP - was indefinitely rangeblocked and I was one of many casualties of that block. I had just started my Wikipedian career and was making minor edits anonymously. I did not see a reason to have an "official" account at that point as I was not doing much editing and was just learning the system. I can tell you that I was devastated when the block happened. I felt then, as I do now, that Wikipedia is important to humanity. There is nothing more noble than educating the public, in my humble opinion, and I wanted to be a part of it. Not only was I no longer able to contribute, but I was also lumped in with people who vandalized Wikipedia. I also want to point out that it was not just me, it was also every other person that used NoCharge as an ISP.

NoCharge is a free dialup service that provides Internet access. The service runs at one half dialup speed, and as such, is used almost exclusively by low-income people. This slow speed means that pages that have a few pictures, like the main page, take about 3 minutes to load on a web browser. I can tell you this slowness is very frustrating, but when you are poor, you take what you can get. So the two and a half-year block essentially punished low-income people for what vandals may have possibly done at some future date. As far as I am aware, only a single individual from NoCharge was ever able to contribute to Wikipedia during the two and a half-year block. And that was only after trying many avenues, jumping through many hoops, and finally having to contact Jimmy Wales directly. This is when the hard block changed to a soft block, but with account creation disabled so new contributors could still not participate. I have asked that user to share their experience here, but am not certain how active they are.

To be completely open, NoCharge does not have individual user accounts. All users log in with the same username so there is an anonymity aspect to it. But the idea that it would be used as a proxy is not very realistic, as the cost of a few long distance phone calls to NoCharge could easily pay for an entire month of dialup service at a local ISP under a false name. This would be especially expensive because NoCharge runs at one half dialup speed, meaning even the smallest pages take over a minute to load in a web browser. Of course the long distance charges do not apply to people living in Seattle, which is where the service is provided. I realize that somebody may decide block NoCharge again because I was so open about this. But Wikipedia demands openness and I want to follow the Wikipedian way, regardless of the outcome, because I believe in the project and I hope others will allow us low-income people to participate.

References

• NoCharge block history (User:64.40.32.0/19)

Initial block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

• Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users

Conversation about initial block at User talk:Jpgordon

• The 64.40.32.0/19 range block
• Regarding the range block of the NoCharge ISP

Review of block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

• Review of indefinite rangeblocks

Wikipedia references

• Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs
• Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses
• Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Block lengths

Results hoped for
Ideally, I would like to be advised of either of the following

1. Wikipedia is trying to reduce this kind of damage, how it is doing so and what can be done in the future, or
2. This is a normal part of running Wikipedia efficiently and cannot be helped.

All comments are most welcome and greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time and consideration. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How about option 3?

This is a normal part of running Wikipedia efficiently and there are ways to deal with it

I'm sorry you had this problem, seemingly for 2.5 years. I reject, however, the notion that it is (or was) targeted at "low-income" users, unless there are diffs that support that assertion. The threads above don't seem to support that assertion. I am sorry it was preemptively done and there was no review (or at least no lifting of the block) before now. On the surface, however, it sure looks like it was at least a reasoned, if not reasonable, block. But reasoned or not, we block for vandalism, not income. And who's to say that even if vandalism spiked because of this service, that it would be because of "income level"? Maybe a block is just a block, and very often, they are for WP:VANDALISM. I'll sit back and wait for diffs on this, and I won't say anything more negative about it, but suffice to say I think it's characterized uncharitably.  Frank  |  talk  04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it looks like it was changed just over a month after it was initially placed, so that registered users could log in: [107].  Frank  |  talk  04:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I inferred that it was targetted at low-income users. My intent was to say that the result of the block was that low-income users were hurt inadvertantly. I do not believe there was any malice related with the block only that the block had unintended consequences. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 04:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't imply it, you trumpeted it with the title of the thread! I'll quit beating that drum (or horse); I've made my point on that front. But still - in 2.5 years, you had no other options for editing? I've never tried editing from a range-blocked IP, but did you try to put an {{unblock}} template on its talk page? You seem to have an account, after the first month, did you try to log in? How about free internet access from a school, university, or - most likely - a library? Any friends, relatives, acquaintances with Internet access? Email to WP:ARBCOM? Email to an administrator (perhaps a different one than blocked) by going to an admin's page and clicking "Email this user"?  Frank  |  talk 

This is my mistake. I should have chosen a different title for the thread. I used a title similar to title of the first review, which was Hard block of a free dialup ISP for low-income users. This was from the first review, a month later, when the block was changed from a hard block to a soft block as you stated. This happened when after a user contacted Jimmy Wales.

It appears that I have made several mistakes. I am a new user with only 2 months experince which is why I added the part about my ignorance to the message above. I hope you will forgive me.To answer your questions, I did not have an account at the time of the block so I could not place a tag. The account I have now was creted 2 months ago after the block was lifted. I did not try to log in from a school and I did not know what ARBCOM was until a couple of weeks ago. I did contact serveral people, but they said they could not help me because NoCharge was labeled as a proxy at that point.

I would like to state that all this is in the past and I'm just happy to be here now. I would like to focus on what we could do in the future. I just want to raise awareness of this incident so similar things can be minimized in the future. Thank you for the links. These are things I was unaware of. I appreciate your help. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 05:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank, your comments seem to be a bit over the top - could you tone them down a bit please? Regarding the block, normally this would be a hard block because free dialup is essentially an open proxy. This particular block is a softblock because of the issues you mention about collateral damage. It is still possible (albeit more difficult) to get an account by sending an email, and I don't think that is an excessive barrier to entry given the potential for abuse. So as I did in the original block discussion 2.5 years ago, I'd prefer a softblock (anon only, account creation disabled) on this range as opposed to a normal hard block. Prodego ^talk 05:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll sleep on it, but meta-discussion should probably happen elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  05:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hydroxonium - we are always glad to have productive contributors, and despite how I may have come across above, I, like most of the rest of us around here, don't like to see people driven away, especially accidentally. I think it's going to be hard to avoid similar situations in the future, but as you seemed unaware of the ideas I put forth as mitigations, perhaps others were (and are) similarly unaware. That creates an action item: if we can't change our tribal reaction to vandalism, we can certainly change (improve) the documentation describing what to do about possible collateral damage.  Frank  |  talk  05:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Just to let everyone know, this range has been unblocked since march of this year. Protonk (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Frank - No worries. We're all good - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the block was lifted by Xeno per this conversation because nobody could find any vandalism from there. I don't know the rules so maybe just the possibility of vandalism, or just being labeled a proxy is enough to block. Does actual vandalism need to take place first? Could anybody clarify that?

Oh yes, Frank, you are correct, I did not realize there were all those solutions. Maybe we could educate newbies like myself a little bit better regarding all those solutions. Thanks for the help. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I should also mention that (66.109.192.0/20) is also part of the NoCharge domain and that Xeno mentioned this "And on the other hand, the 66.109.192.0/20 actually showed a fairly disproportionate (from personal experience) amount of positive edits from anons when they were able to" as part of the discussion when he unblocked. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that (66.109.192.0/20) link above redirected when I clicked it, but you can type "User:66.109.192.0/20" in to the form when you get to the page and it will show it's part of NoCharge. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to chime in here. I am pleased to know that the hardblock of NoCharge has been removed, as I felt initially, and still do, that it was an egregious move that blocked access to Wikipedia for those who used the service. Putting a little backstory on NoCharge, it started out as a free ISP in Washington State, USA, for low income families and individuals, completely funded by grant money, in the late 1990s. It quickly expanded to cover the entire region known as Western Washington, in more than 40 major communities. I had been a user of NoCharge for almost six years, and began editing Wikipedia in 2005 as an anonymous user, then I registered my username Srosenow_98, with Wikipedia so that I could be a more regular and credible contributor. Two years passed without issue nor cause for alarm, until I found I could no longer contribute, much less even read an article. I couldn't even log in to my account on Wikipedia. At the time, I was working on a revision of the Gillig entry on Wikipedia as well as laying what would be the foundation for the subpages that cover their discontinued school bus product lines. Shocked and dismayed, I posted a request to remove the block on my Talk Page, which was then subsequently declined. I then accessed Wikipedia from a public library, which was more than 10 miles distant, to continue my contributions. Seeing how bad a move it was to block users of NoCharge, and after unsuccessfully appealing the decision by the blocking admin repeatedly, I took the issue to Jimmy Wales, Wikipeda's founder (yes, I was the user who contacted him). After successive discussions on the Administrator's Noticeboard, I was pleased at the end result. It should be mentioned that I no longer use NoCharge. At the time, I was living in Potlatch, Washington and during rainy weather, connection to NoCharge began to get fickle, and ultimately became unfeasable due to poor connection speeds or connections constantly dropping. Srosenow 98 (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanka very much for the imput Srosenow 98. I really appreciated getting support from a fellow (albeit former) NoCharge user. This has been a nightmare, hasn't it? - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 07:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• An ISP was blocked. It was unblocked. Nobody died. Someone demands that we admit that, for example, this block was due to bias, despite there being no actual evidence of that, the answer to which is a polite no. As far as I can tell nothing needs to change at this point? Guy (Help!) 11:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue which jumps out to me it that the ISP was blocked (for good reasons) before vandalism from it became a problem. Given the technical limitations to this ISP as described by Hydroxonium (eg, the very slow speed) it's unlikely that it would have developed into a serious problem. The moral to the story I'm taking out of it as an admin is to take greater care with IP blocks and I'd suggest that those admins who block open proxies assess the level of vandalism and nature of the proxy (where possible) before implementing a block. I do note, however, that it's generally necessary to block open proxies, and this seems to be an unusual case. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, many other networks have the same technical limitations and can be a major pain in the ass when it comes to vandalism. I cannot assert what the vandalism level coming from that range was at that time, but I assume it was problematic if jpgordon blocked it. On the other hand, the normal process of Wikipedia is to reassess blocks from time to time, and I'm happy it is unblocked if the vandalism from there is now manageable. I surely hope that all hardblocks (heh, even all blocks) are taken seriously and that people don't hardblock an IP without looking at the technical (whois) and behavioral (traffic) details. -- Luk ^talk 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• @Jzg, I don't think that is Hydroxonium's intent here at all. I believe what s/he is trying to say is that barriers to entry are prima facie A Bad Thing™, and they should only be raised when a real and present problem has presented itself (not preemptively), and that blocks should be proportionate to the amount of disruption. Indefinitely blocking a range that had zero edits, and apparently no evidence of it being used for vandalism (grooming socks, etc.), was not appropriate then, and it would not be appropriate now. S/he is asking administrators to be mindful when placing blocks on anonymous users. I don't think that's unreasonable. –xeno^talk 12:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of your desired results, (2) seems to be the one that is applicable. I too see nothing else to discuss here, though I do of course regret that it was necessary to block some legitimate users—as it often is in these types of scenarios. AGK 12:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I see that this block was performed to pre-empt a perceived danger of vandalism. I have more sympathy with this request (I did not realise this fact when making my first comment), though would note that the block was performed in 2007 (when, as Hydroxonium states, we were doing our best to keep Grawp at bay) and would almost surely not be placed today. AGK 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• We also had a big debate about open proxies since then. Guy (Help!) 13:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Are we sure it is a proxy? The OP says "Somebody mentioned that NoCharge was free and said it could possibly be used as a proxy. Once it was labeled as a proxy, it was closed as being a proxy even though it hadn't been used as such." Everyone seems to be jumping on the "proxy bandwagon", but I don't see any proof of it being an actual honest-to-God proxy. That would come from a CU. So, let's get one of those, have them check the range, and go from there. Just don't put your cart before your horse. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know, it's not a proxy, and you can't use it as a proxy; you need to dial-in to access it. –xeno^talk 13:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, just wanted to make sure so we aren't unnecessarily labeling it as a proxy. Carry on. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is by definition an open proxy (which is different than just a proxy) if anyone is allowed to connect to it for free. Which is the case (ignoring the phone charges). Neutralhomer, checkusers have absolutely zero to do with determining if an IP is a proxy, other than that it is something they frequently do. Prodego ^talk 18:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

By whose definition? –xeno^talk 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a traditional definition seen on this board many times before: If the IP can be used by anyone anywhere, and there's no accountability at the ISP's end to stop the abusive user using it, then it's an open proxy. The accountability is what traditionally divides any other ISP proxy from an open proxy; payment of money ("having an account") has traditionally been used as a measure of accountability. This is of course discounted by Protonk's comments immediately below, and so we should instead look at whether it's being used abusively. As Protonk also mentions, it's just not attractive for a serial vandal. Vandals use open HTTP, web proxies, and anonymity networks for convenience. If they all used dialups to rapidly switch IPs we'd think about blocking them instead. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So then by a very strict definition my ISP is a closed proxy. Ok. But I still believe that absent ongoing disruption, we should not block preemptively. –xeno^talk 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The types of open proxies I mentioned above (as well as some others) have a proven history of chronic abuse. They are like IP ranges in themselves, which is why pre-emptive blocks of those IPs are not actually pre-emptive. Dialup isn't something we have a particular problem with though, in general. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"and there's no accountability at the ISP's end to stop the abusive user using it" If there has been one factual claim which has been rendered vacant by wikipedia's vandalism experience, it is that traditional ISPs have an accountability function for the end users. If this is part of our mechanism for determining which service providers to treat as 'closed', we should revisit that thought process. Protonk (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't mind me here! I'll just read the first half of a comment then respond...... *sorry* Protonk (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My general comment is that the presentation here that nocharge is nothing like what we refer to broadly as an "open proxy" is compelling. The majority of customers are local, the speed is slow and you can't connect aribtrarily many times (because you are limited by phone lines). In fact, it looks an awful lot like a traditional dial-up ISP except you don't have to pay money. Maybe in 2007 we could have convinced ourselves that forcing a user to have a set account on one end of the ISP mattered for vandalism or other reasons, but I haven't seen any evidence of that claim in my time on wikipedia. We have long term vandals and sockpuppeteers on traditional ISPs who could give a shit less that they are creating hundreds of accounts a month for nuisance reasons. My other comment is that these arguments were basically made 2.5 years ago by Srosenow 98. And they were ignored. So maybe time has softened the attitude toward range blocks in general. Or maybe we will repeat this problem. If the latter is the case, it behooves us to discuss the problem honestly here. With respect to JzG, saying "nobody died" is unhelpful. IP blocks are balancing acts between knowns and unknowns. This case should give us pause and cause us to think harder about estimating the unknowns before making long term decisions. Protonk (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. So for those of us who where active on admin boards in 2007 (not me), and who are still here, should reconsider those actions. Ok. Now what. Much has changed since 2007, and I don't see any real prescription for change here. I really am not sure this is the right venue for this sort of discussion either. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Purpose: I want to let people know that heavy-handed decisions can have unintended consequences which include enormous collateral damage to Wikipedia's volunteers." These things still happen, and so this is a relevant topic to be brought up here. Nothing to do in this particular case, but in general there is still scope for improvement. Every cohort of adminalikes should be made to learn more about the collateral effects of admin decisions, especially long or wide-ranging IP blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Block notices, range-block templates, and interface messages related to blocks, are often created assuming people know a lot about Wikipedia. They need to be designed to also help newcomers who don't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with xeno in the sense that an expansive definition of "open proxy" should not then be an excuse to preemptively block an IP range. That's absurd. However, the argument made by the OP (and where is this argument leading by the way? Is there some end goal in mind?) is that because this service is utilized by "low income" individuals, a claim that isn't verified here, that it should receive special privileges.

That's absurd. We treat IP ranges with a dose of sanity and that generally means not blocking off wide-ranging, free, open access areas, like Starbucks or Verizon wireless for the potential of abuse, but we do block these ranges, temporarily, for actual abuse, in the least disruptive way possible. This IP range is no different. A rangeblock on any single ISP for that length of time is probably too long, but how does that translate to something relevant for us to do now? This is a complaint in need of an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• MAIN POINT - Reviewing large scale blocks is important and very much appreciated by users, as stated at the top of this thread in the "Appreciation" section.

I can see now that my message got lost in all my rambling. I was just trying to say thanks for all your work because I know you guys get critisized all the time. I just gave way, WAY too much background info. Oops. Sorry. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 11:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Granting and removing of +accountcreator

Hi folks!

I've got a bit of a question here concerning the +accountcreator flag.

(TLDR summary: Various pages state that +accountcreator can be removed if the user is not involved with WP:ACC. However, it was granted for other purposes which are a side-effect of intended use. Should removal continue? )

From WP:RFPERM:

The account creator flag is granted to users who are active in the account request process. The flag removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24 hour period. It also allows users to make accounts with names similar to other accounts. The account creator flag is only given to users who participate in the ACC process and may be removed without notice should a user's participation in the account creation process cease.

Wikipedia:Account creator doesn't offer much more:

In addition, account creators (users in the 'accountcreator' user group) can override titleblacklist. The latter allows them to edit editnotices. The permission is granted to users who are active in the request-an-account process

These two pages tell me what I already know - that the accountcreator flag is given to users who participate in the WP:ACC process (usually only to users who hit the 6 account creations / day / IP address rate limit multiple times AFAIAA). However, I'm also aware that a number of users have been granted the accountcreator flag for other reasons, such as a teacher creating accounts for schoolkids[108], editnotice editing, and even one for no apparent reason. Others have the accountcreator flag because they were on ACC, but no longer are, and it hasn't been removed.

Wikipedia:Editnotice only mentions the technical capabilities of accountcreators being able to edit editnotices, not that wishing to edit editnotices is a reason for giving the flag.

Special:ListGroupRights shows that the accountcreator group has the following:

• Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
• Override the spoofing checks (override-antispoof)
• Override the title blacklist (tboverride)

The first is to allow overriding of the 6 account creations / 24 hours / IP address rate limit. The second two are to allow creation of usernames that the automatic filtering (in the form of titleblacklist and antispoof) prevent, but are actually OK for creation and subsequent use. It's a bit of a side-effect that accountcreators are also able to edit editnotices.

Am I missing something somewhere that says that users who wish to edit editnotices should get +accountcreator? If so, would it not be better to give the flag by a different name? I was about to remove the flag from a bunch of users who happen to be listed here Note: I wasn't planning on removing it from all in that list. Note 2: In that list, "Suspended" is highly likely only due to inactivity on the ACC tool. Note 3: Do I actually need to notify the users there about this thread? Seems a bit of a grey area, cos they aren't being discussed directly., but a quick bit of discussion on IRC made me realise that this is likely to only cause DRAMA, so I'm open for discussion first.

Given the statement on WP:RFPERM, I was just going to go ahead with this and remove the flags, but as I mentioned above, I think for something like this it's better to actually get a sanity check. Everything I've read (I might have missed something) seems to offer a positive sanity check, but I think another human or two is needed.

Thanks,

--[stwalkerster|talk] 23:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, interwiki link to toolserver page didn't parse correctly. Try this one: [109]. --[stwalkerster|talk] 23:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Accountcreators can, but aren't supposed to, edit editnotices. Prodego ^talk 23:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, then on more discussion is needed. I think it should be removed, too. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the accountcreator flag should be given for that purpose and that only, this should not be handed out just because someone wants to edit editnotices. It seems to me that if an editnotice needs to be created or edited then the editor should be able to contact an admin or an accountcreator just as they would have to for page protection or editing a protected template and so forth. But handing out this flag just for editnotice use should not be done. If this suggestion is not sufficient enough then I say remove the editnotice access from the accountcreator bit. Mlpearc powwow 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should just randomly give this out to any Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks they might want to edit some editnotice. I have no problem granting it on a temporary basis to someone who needs to make a particular edit to a particular editnotice and removing it once they're done, but the only people who should have the permission on a permanent basis are those who need it for creating accounts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through that list and, of those who don't and didn't have access to the account creation tool, the majority seem to be alternate accounts of admins. There were 2 or 3 (including a bot) who needed title blacklist override for one reason or another, one who was granted it for editnotice editing, one who was granted ACC with no reason given in the log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone shall correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 'title blacklist' also covers blacklisted names. So there may be some particular blacklisted name, where a totally innocuous name is prevented because of the rule so it requires an accountcreator to create. –xeno^talk 14:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much potential for this right to be abused (everything would be logged), so I don't see too much harm in giving this to someone who is interested in needing to create accounts for a school project (although students should just make their own accounts) or for someone who intends to change many editnotices. However, if they're not in the ACC project, I'd check in after a couple of weeks and ask if they still needed the right, as it wouldn't have much use afterwards. I agree that it shouldn't be given for permanent/long-term usage for anyone not involved in ACC, but it doesn't seem to have caused any harm. —fetch·comms 16:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Copyrighted Material

I apologise if this is not the right place to ask this question; but here goes anyway. I created a mathematics article: Poincaré complex. This article consisted primarily of definitions. The article was tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-G12}}. I placed a {{hangon}} template at the top of the page and made two posts on the page's talk page; one of which was to ask what I should do to avoid the article being speedy deleted, i.e. how to stop it infringing copyright. An user:Fastily came and deleted the article without entering into any discussion on the talk page. My point was this: the article was made up of mathematical definitions; these cannot be subject to copyright. I did not assume authorship of the material and referenced everything meticulous. The webpage that I based my article on was itself based on two academic papers (both of which I references). I guess I have two questions:

1. Was it okay for user:Fastily to delete the article within a few seconds despite the {{hangon}} template and my requests for help on the helpdesk and the article's talk page?
2. If I want to included mathematical definitions that already exist in published works then how do I avoid copyright infringement?

— Fly by Night (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to a similar post on my talk page at User_talk:Fastily#Poincar.C3.A9_Complex. Look forward to hearing what others have to say. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, please see [110] -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to cite this as clear evidence of my bad intentions ([111]); but I was simply being honest and asking for clarification. I still don't understand how a definition can be subject to copyright.— Fly by Night (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I still maintain that Fastily has a tendency to use his tools in in a haphazard fashion and bites newcomers far too often. His response frequency has increased after the last complaint, but so too has the frequency of canned, unhelpful responses. An RFC/U is probably the next step.

The copyright question (whether a mathematical proof can be copyrighted) is probably best discussed at WP:MCQ. –xeno^talk 17:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why, it almost seems like hounding xeno. Why is it that you are always so quick to assume bad faith and make such harsh comments? I know we've disagreed in the past but I hardly think I deserve this kind of brash treatment at every turn. To be quite frank, I'm rather saddened by what I'm seeing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was similarly saddened to see good-faith user User talk:Danilo Hegg indefinitely blocked for "Repeated Vandalism", when he was acting in good faith. A short 15 minute block with a note about acceptable additions would've been more appropriate. AGF is a two-way street. If someone asks for help, stop to help and explain what you are doing before pulling out the tools. –xeno^talk 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) (edit conflict) Identifying the line where a mathematical formula becomes not copyrightable is a massive headache for me (I do a lot with copyright on Wikipedia, but not much with higher maths), but in this case a formula alone was not the problem. For example, your article included the following:

Poincaré showed that the homology groups of a manifold satisfy a certain relation (the Poincaré duality isomorphism). A Poincaré complex is a space where this isomorphism is taken as an axiom (see also Poincaré space).

Those reviewing the source will find that text familiar. You copied additional text from that source as well. "2 + 2 = 4" is not copyrightable, but you cannot copy large chunks of explication from copyrighted sources. You may use brief excerpts, properly marked, in accordance with WP:NFC, but most text you include here needs to be written completely by you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the source and the deleted page, it looks close enough that it should have been blanked and gone to Copyright Problems. But calling it a borderline G12 is being generous. The speedy should have been declined and a longer term process should have been used. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I messed up an import

I just realised that the earliest versions of Talk:Profession were absent here but present at Nostalgia, so I imported them to Talk:Profession/Talk, moved them to Talk:Profession and deleted that page, and restored the page to complete the merge. Unfortunately, the old versions appear both where they should and in August 2010, so I had to perform a revert. Any ideas what I did wrongly? Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• That looks like a pretty standard history merge, you usually have to revert to the latest new version after moving the old revisions on top (which creates a new revision with the old content) and undeleting the new ones. –xeno^talk 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh really...okay, I didn't know that such a merge would force me to revert to the latest new version, which I did shortly before posting this request for help. I thought that a properly-done merge like this would result in the old revisions appearing as old revisions only. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • It does. But you effectively added further revisions, with the old content but dated today, with the page rename and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Technically they do, but the newest revision in the merged article is actually the one with the log entry of you moving it from the Talk:Profession/Talk to Talk:Profession. –xeno^talk 16:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Curious, is it possible to tell it to import from page title X to page title Y? I would have imported to Talk:Profession, but somehow it imported to Talk:Profession/Talk, when I would have expected it to go to Profession/Talk. Last time that I did an import, the article ended up in mainspace, but I wanted it in userspace because it was an import from de:wp; however, I didn't seem to have any options other than mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is possible to select the namespace, and you may have done that accidentally. If you select "all" as the namespace, it will import into the main namespace.

Additionally, this diff shows a duplicate edit. Edits with the exact same timestamp cannot be separated; this should change when revision move is enabled on Wikipedia.

The fact that you had some old revisions from 2001 shown as August 2010 edits is an artifact of the method you used for history merging. If you had imported the page, moved the talk page over the newly imported page, restored the needed edits, then moved the page back, you would not have had that problem. That's the second method described at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves; it doesn't add as many redundant edits to the history as the first one. Graham87 07:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have started a related thread at Wikipedia talk:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Which history merge method should be used? Graham87 08:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Personal attack on sodabottle' s User talk & Requesting Strict Action on Mona1978

Resolved

 – Editor blocked. Take to ANI next time. Shadowjams (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In an Kerala state related discussion, Mona1978 has used extremely abusive & defamatory words on User:Sodabottle's Talk Page. Following are the abusive words used by the User:Mona1978.
Do just that and dare not ever think that Munnar WILL EVER go to Toilet-Nadu. Toilet-Nadu will go the way of Pirabhakaram and LTTE before that ever happens.
These same Mallus welcomed your gr8 Tamil brothers when they came wagging their tails from Toilet-Nadu a few generations back. MOST people in Munnar speak Malayalam and will continue to do so. Tamils there clean latrines and toilets and do not go to school.

He is referring Tamil Nadu as Toilet-Nadu. I request WP:Administrators to take strict action to block the Mona1978 for abusing Tamil people's sentiments & for the personal attack at User:Sodabottle's talk page.

---

Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 09:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, in keeping with my general habbit of blocking on site users whose first edit is to hurl personal attacks at a specific editor. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine Someguy1221!. That will help us to keep the serious vandals away from our wikipedia. ----Raj 6644(தமிழன்) 10:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for Disambig Link In Order to Make Findable an Otherwise COMPLETELY Unfindable Template

Resolved

 – Realized it was only semi-protected and I could add the needed template myself. WCityMike 00:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I'm looking for the Wikipedia article on Nausea and see a {{so?}} tag after something. Especially given that the "discuss" link of that tag leads to nothing -- meaning the author who placed the tag never started a corresponding talk page discussion -- I decide to remove it. But I want to check to see if {{so?}} has any documentation before doing that -- so I decide to pop over to that page.

So I type "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:so?" into my browser. Without me noticing, the browser drops the question mark (thanks to URL parsing), it goes to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:so", which redirects to Template:uw-soablock.

So I start looking for the template tag. Both searches using Wikipedia's search engine, and Google searches like site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:template "so?" and site:en.wikipedia.org inurl:template "relevant" don't yield it anywhere.

Finally, eureka, I realize the source of problem, hop over to URL Encoder/Decoder, get the "%3F" for a question mark, and end up at Template:so?.

Suggestion is to add a disambig link to Template:uw-soablock for Template:so?, since the technicalities of how a browser parses URLs means that Template:so? is fairly unlocatable otherwise -- and this way, people arriving at Template:uw-soablock from a search for Template:so would quickly find their desired result. ;-) WCityMike 19:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure that {{so?}} is 'unfindable'. I stuck Template:so? into the Wikipedia search box and was very promptly redirected to Template:Off-topic? Is there really a problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.112.10 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be pretty much the only way to find it. Given that that may be the one successful way of finding it amidst a few hundred other dead ends, would a disambig link on Template:uw-soablock be that problematic? WCityMike 19:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved, see above. WCityMike 00:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly moved this to {{relevance note}}, because in my opinion the former title really was unfindable. Not only was {{so?}} confusable with {{so}}, but the actual location at {{off-topic?}} was confusable with the completely different template {{off-topic}}. Probably it shouldn't be possible to create templates with a question mark in in the title, due to the URL parsing issue already mentioned, but in any case this one was just wrong. I welcome any suggestion for an even better template name; the present one was just a matter of finding a name that doesn't conflict with a better-known one. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia Polska toolserver blocked (within 94.23.0.0/16)

Wikimedia Polska is operating a toolserver that uses the 94.23.242.48 IP address. Unfortunately, this is within the OVH address block that is currently hardblocked on enwiki.

Bot operators (in this case mostly interwiki) cannot update enwiki pages because of that.

We've had the same problem on plwiki, and we have solved this by breaking this block into smaller ones:

1. 94.23.243.0/24
2. 94.23.240.0/23
3. 94.23.244.0/22
4. 94.23.248.0/21
5. 94.23.224.0/20
6. 94.23.192.0/19
7. 94.23.128.0/18
8. 94.23.0.0/17

Could this block be also changed on English Wikipedia?

 « Saper // @talk »  20:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've softblocked the IP. Will that do? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, who blocked this range in the first place? And for what reason? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was blocked by Kanonkas as a dedicated server range which by definition will only be used as a proxy. If experience is to go by it would be used by banned sockpuppets on broken boxes and PHP proxies. In general people will always have a choice not to use web servers, and to request an unblock or IPBE when their use is legitimate. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Range blocks for more examples of blocked server ranges. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! Softblocking solves this problem, too. Thanks!  « Saper // @talk »  23:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

InkHeart (talk · contribs) requesting unblock

See User talk:174.137.52.217, User talk:Jimbo Wales#A Chance, User talk:InkHeart. User wasn't aware of WP:OFFER. Was socking as recently as yesterday; see SPI case. Could we at least get InkHeart's talk page access restored so they don't have to use IPs to post? N419BH 01:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not going to unblock them in six months anyway. They've already wasted our time with countless socks, and I think the "standard offer" for InkHeart will be in this situation, as they suggested themselves, two years. No socks whatsoever or it's never. They don't need to post anything until then. I'd just let ArbCom deal with whatever email they sent though. —fetch·comms 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

 – Thanks! Connormah^talk 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is a bit backed up - if any admin can go over and take a look, that;d be great. Thanks. Connormah^talk 04:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks quite clean to me :) -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks :) Connormah^talk 07:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

rangeblock of 96.231.x.x

A dynamic IP is adding BLP vio text to Georgie Anne Geyer. I can't get it successfully protected, despite several requests. I don't know why the IP has this particular axe to grind, but it needs to stop, either through rangeblock or page protection. I'm not picky about which, but I am picky about BLP vios. Also forgive me for not notifying the IP, they've gone dynamic, I have no idea which is the sockmaster.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be concerned about protecting the article in the version you have been reverting to, stating "Her life story was adapted into the sitcom Hearts Afire", considering this was denied by the show's producer in this washington post article and the reference cited for the claim is a dead link. To me there look to be at least 10 reverts on that article in the last week and I don't see any talk page discussion by either side. Perhaps all mention of Hearts Afire could be removed temporarily until some discussion has taken place over what wording should be used? Also should this not be on either Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as it's about a particular incident, or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to discuss the BLP itself as necessary Davewild (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we will be blocking a /16 for minor disruption on a single article. I also would recommend against semi-protection since their appear to be other IP editors making positive edits. Protonk (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a back-and-forth edit war over an external legal dispute that's lasted for over a week. I'd have just set pending changes, were it not for the fact that one of the parties in the edit war is a reviewer, using an automated revert tool against people without accounts using the undo tool. No-one has used the talk page at all. It's time for that to start happening. Uncle G (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:George McFinnigan ie at article Spain

(moved to WP:ANI. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)) Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
George McFinnigan ie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [112]
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]
• 5th revert: [116]
• 6th revert: [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118], [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]

Comments:
Recently this editor has removed material on Aragonese and paella, e.g [121], [122], [123], also removing the correct name A Coruña from a caption [124], replacing Ourense with Orense [125], there are earlier instances than these in the last few days. This editor also does not leave edit summaries. I have invited him to discuss at Talk:Spain and warned him about edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I have moved this here as a report at WP:3RR was declined. I consider this users behaviour to be contentious and disruptive and they refuse to discuss proposed edits at teh artcile talk page as requested. Examination of User talk:George McFinnigan ie show similar behaviour on other articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved back here as it was archived without (apparently) attention from an admin. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This would be better off at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.112.10 (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, my mistake, I was linked back here from the archive. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• This a a failed 3RR report that is being forum shopped at multiple locations, it was ignored at ANI and it was rejected as no action at 3RR and now it is here. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the post immediately above. I posted here by mistake and explained that. Am I to take it that if admins choose to ignore valid reports of edit warring, I am supposed to just let it ride? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see, so you made a 3rr report and it was closed as no action and you cut and copied it to ANI where it sat ignored without response for 24 hours and was archived and you have now unarchived it back to the ANI and copy pasted it here by mistake, I get it now, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

More or less, the admin who said no violation of 3RR at that board suggested ANI as a venue. I note also that although not a 3RR violation the behaviour is still edit warring - can you suggest a suitable venue? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm an admin get me out of here...

I was responding to an editprotected request at MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext and see to have knobed it. I've undone my change to no avail. Think it is to do with {{REVISIONUSER}} but can't seem to deal with it. Possibly an apostrophe in my name causing a problem, as only part of my username is transcluding. I've really no idea. Help would be greatly appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed it - CURRENTUSER needed subst'ing, if I've broken anything else please feel free to change it! Black Kite (t) (c) 18:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks guys. One part doesn't seem to work so I reinstated the old method. Going back to the original problem, why do these two revisions 1 and 2 show different things when the code is identical? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Norris Facts

Could I please have some eyes on Chuck Norris facts? Some editors keep re-adding very poorly sourced facts, completely oblivious to the fact that you can't use eBay listings or Google search results as a citation, especially not to a totally random examplefarm. There's also a high degree of linkspamming going on; my last reversion cut the article size in half. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do admins need to see this? Try the WP:Content noticeboard. Fences&Windows 23:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that even existed. Moved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I see a report that someone is making crappy edits to -- or vandalizing -- an article related to Chuck Norris, I think there is a joke there. Involving a roundhouse kick. -- llywrch (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Double GA's for the same article?

Maybe I'm missing something but are Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark the same article? They're both listed as GA's but seem to be about the same movie.. Thanks. Tommy! [message] 00:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Raiders... redirects to Raiders of the Lost Ark. wiooiw (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) They are the same article, as Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark is actually just a WP:REDIRECT page pointing to Raiders of the Lost Ark. The actual content of the Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark page is "#REDIRECT[[Raiders of the Lost Ark]]" as you can see by following this link. EdChem (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

However, looking at the redirect's history tells us- an IP was trying to perform a cut and paste move, which was reverted. Courcelles 00:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yeah now I see... I was going to say I am NOT crazy! haha. Thanks Tommy! [message] 00:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL requested

I'd like to ask for an admin to do a quick REVDEL of the last two (or maybe even the last three) Aug 8 edits of User:98.144.98.183 - they clearly qualify for RD2, especially in view of BLP considerations. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done. There's enough wrong with all three edits to delete them. Courcelles 08:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Harmful work by Zionist lobby on wikipedia

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANG. Indef blocked for attacks and racist trolling. Fences&Windows 12:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No need for this to be on display

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oy vey (User:Zordrac one of the participant is banned already) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Schmuck_(pejorative) Schmuck (pejorative) while the english Fool doesn't have its own article aside from wiktionary, same goes for the "Stupid" word. They prompt up at israeli policies' related articles, and today israeli policy being a sensitive subject, they by means of promotion try to promote and advocate israeli / jewish ideas to non-jewish people, so they would unlikely to criticize israeli crimes, "oh they're good guys how can they be bad?" For example, Jewish_Mafia#Late_20th_Century, we all know that the most notable and the main concept of mafia in america is italians! But in the future there would be no living witnesses and people would gather information from a rewritten history, and of course there the role of "jewish mafia" would be exaggerated. And it's no a secret, they have notification tools such as: JIDF Megaphone desktop tool (though was written by a butthurt kid) Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America etc This guy was banned purely for adding {{cn}} in this article. And there already were incidents: US Dept. of Justice IP address blocked after 'vandalism' edits to Wikipedia, somehow may be related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign For example, one of the active participant in israeli sensitive topics, User:MathKnight who added a crop picture of a red-haired singer, in this singer's talkpage he said: "C Redheads, unlike femininity, is a relatively rare feature. Sincerely, MathKnight Gothic 11:36," And he also contributed to red hair article on hebrew wikipedia which is the featured article there, and is the only featured article on that matter amongst all other language sections of wikipedia! Yes, I don't have direct proofs that he's racist, but is there a necessity in that? He's probably a typical inferiority-complexed person due to Holocaust, and now he became like "his enemies" (fascists) Although, it shouldn't be surprising, most of israeli right-wing guys, are in fact, racist guys. From the chilhood they born in hatred to another nation (not all of them, but..) On a sidenote, a screenshot. Albeit it's only israeli jews who are butthurt over that subject and can't live without being wrapped in propaganda. Not to mention their artificially made up article, which link they put in this "Race and intelligence" article in the first order of "see also" section, if it's not a promotion and an advertisement then what? And btw in the article "Race and intelligence" they had too, participated in: as an example second etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramadeur (talk • contribs) 09:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Behold! I admonish you all to stop it till it's not late! Till there's a chance yet! Dramadeur (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC) If this guy hadn't posted this on an admin-noticeboard, I would've taken it to ANI... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) I'm confused as to the point of Dramadeur's post.--*Kat* (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC) It's a real kick in the pupik. MtD (talk) 08:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC) lol why do people obsess so much about Zionism? Long live the Jewish state of Israel! = ) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. "Oy vey" and "schmuck" having nothing to do with Israel, they're Yiddish terms. Yiddish is a European Jewish language unconnected with Israel. So what you mean is: "I don't like Jews". Indefinitely blocked for making attacks (e.g. on MathKnight) and trolling. Nothing good will come of allowing this editor to remain. Fences&Windows 12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

i request for protection against user:Richard Keatinge in the article of Attila the Hun.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the two of you are edit warring and only one (user:Richard Keatinge) has explained their position on the talk page. Perhaps you should discuss your position there (and not label good faith edits as 'vandalism'). --RegentsPark (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

he usually remove art works from articles. im not a supporter of removing images from articles especially the copyrighted ones.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn Diesel has been edit-warring over this for a long while, and now has made 4rv in just under 25 hours. What's worse, he's making blanket reverts undoing multiple constructive intermediate edits, without explaining what aspects of them he objects to. And this latest edit of his shows an utter lack of willingness to understand other editors' positions. I gave him a WP:DIGWUREN warning the other day, and would request that somebody enacts sanctions on him now. (I myself have become involved in the content dispute since giving him the warning.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Finn Diesel for 48 hours; I was very close to blocking Richard Keatinge too. Fences&Windows 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the page need fully protecting once the block has expired to force discussion to resolve this? Fences&Windows 12:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, other editors besides F.D. have been discussing this on the talk page quite constructively and are generally in agreement (i.e. Richard Keatinge, myself, Nuujinn, and Tataryn77). It's only F.D. that has a problem with it, and with him, frankly, it's a matter of WP:COMPETENCE: he just doesn't seem to be "getting it". For him to continue claiming that rejecting this particular image is an insult to Hungarians is, well, beyond the reach of rational discussion, I'm afraid. So, to my mind this is a case calling for admin sanctions rather than more discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The boomerang has landed. —DoRD (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Resolved

 – Now only 1 - thanks as always. Connormah^talk

There's a massive backlog at WP:RFPP that could use some work. Thanks. Connormah^talk 23:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Handled a good number of them, though there are a few left. get 'em while they're hot, who knows when there will be more RFPP work to do?! Courcelles 23:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as always. Connormah^talk 00:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

13 more unfilled requests. If any admins can take a look, it'd be greatly appreciated. Connormah^talk 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken template

Could someone take a look at this {{Editprotected}} request, please: Template talk:Singles#hAudio microformat, to fix a broken and highly-visible template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted to last known good version without microformats that seemingly don't have consensus to be added wiki-wide. –xeno^talk 13:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As has been repeatedly explained to you, Wikipedia already emits millions of microformats added by consensus over the last three or so years, buy a number of editors. They are already widely parsed by external partners, not least Google and Yahoo!. Your crusade to stop their further deployment is counter-productive. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It "emits millions of microformats" because a relatively small number of editors (that number may even be as low as one) have been going around to every template adding them (crusade- indeed!). Please show us where community consensus for these microformats that unnecessarily complicate our markup and provide no tangible benefit to our readers was originally established. –xeno^talk 14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't show you "where community consensus for these microformats that unnecessarily complicate our markup and provide no tangible benefit to our readers was originally established" because the benefits are clear and tangible. The number is not small (and if it were, so what?) and is certainly not one. Why stoop to such fallacious insinuation? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please initiate a community-wide discussion on microformats. It appears none has ever been conducted. If and when consensus is established for microformats, you will no longer see me object to this piecemeal implementation of an unproven concept that provides no tangible benefit to the average reader and adds complicated markup to already complicated templates. –xeno^talk 14:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have no objections. That one person (xeno) objects does not mean that that a de facto consensus has been arrived at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.88.47 (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That rather mistates what xeno is saying. What he's said is not that there is a consensus not to use microformts, but that no consensus has been arrived at to use them. From what I can see, Andy says there's a consensus – or alternately, that a consensus is not needed since the benefits of using microformats is inuitively obvious, and thus does not require a consensus – but has not been able to actually point to where that consensus is to be found. Since I don't understand the subject in any way shape or form, I cannot judge whether microformats are the best thing since sliced bread or a boondoggle, but xeno's suggestion of a community-wide discussion on the subject certainly seems like an excellent idea, since it would eliminate this kind of conflict and let everyone get on with their businesss. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then - this being a wiki and all - he's at liberty (as indeed are you or anyone else) to start one. Or rather start another one; having failed to achieve his aims the last time. What I'm actually saying, BTW, is that I obtained consensus to start applying microformats some years ago; and the fact that we now emit millions, applied by many editors, is evidence of continuing and de facto consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You have yet to prove your claim that you obtained consensus years ago. You pointed us to a discussion among 3 or 4 microformat enthusiasts, but didn't show us where the community-at-large agreed to embrace this unproven concept. I could start an RFC on Microformats, but you still haven't shown me any way that they will enrich my life - so it would be fairly negatively biased. I think it's best if you started it. Are you worried that they will be rejected? –xeno^talk 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've these allegations previously. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? You continue to refer to "previous discussions" but do not provide links to these. –xeno^talk 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC on microformats

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox single and infobox song

Can someone please noinclude the "this template is being considered for merging" notice on {{Infobox single}} and {{Infobox song}}? Right now, the merge notice is showing up on every article that has the template, thus causing those articles to be categorized in Category:Templates for merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to mess with them myself, but I will point out the editprotected requests behind the changes: Talk:Infobox single and Talk:Infobox song —DoRD (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Offwiki Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Nothing for Admins to do here. Articles were legitimately deleted at AfD. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's here: [126] and [127]. He attacks several editors by name due to the fact that two articles were deleted (incredibly, though, I am not one of the editors he attacked despite the fact that I was the one who AFD-nominated both of those articles!) Is this anything to be worried about? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

no why? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's threatening to sue Wikipedia, after all... Stonemason89 (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If he sues, the Foundation will deal with it. Non-lawyer opinion: there's no case there at all, so no worries. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

According to this AFD, the user has socked, posted legal threats here, been blocked. What they say in cyberspace isn't of our concern, they can do whatever they want there, if they come back here and throw around more legal threats, then we take action, until then, there isn't anything admins can do about offline threats. At present, all accounts are blocked, so they have done all they can. A note: I have no dog in this pony show, just commenting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this kind of thread about off-wiki stuff once in a while and they always confuse me. Why do people assume that Wikipedia has any control over anything offsite? Jtrainor (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Because we do :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can another admin take over for me on this?

I have been dealing with User:Thehelpinghand's issues with WP:COMPETENCE for about two weeks and I find I have lost all patience with this user and don't want to deal with them anymore. I blacklisted them from using Twinkle, and I suspect that User:Thehelpinghand/morebits.js is some sort of attempt to do an end run around that decision rather than accepting it and proving they can do reversions without Twinkle as they have been repeatedly asked to do. They have been elusive and half-truthful with me in the past week or so and I have little faith that an inquiry from me about this would be met with an honest answer, maybe someone else would like to give it a try? I have also asked on the Twinkle talk page if anyone there can tell what is going on here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Not an admin, but I took at look at the userpage and it lists User talk:Jangid2k3 at the top. That struck me as odd, why would they have a seperate account, that only edited on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Village Siswala and once on "Thehelpinghand"'s talk page? Strange. If they are misusing TWINKLE (which I am guessing, even with this new .js page they still can't use being blacklisted), they are causing problems, and not listening to an admin who is trying to help...then I think a block, maybe a week, is in order just to snap them back to reality. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If he edits again soon I'll take a look. Actions just seem bizarre though. If he doesn't get the point we can protect the user script files. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed he also created User:Thehelpinghand/twinkle, not sure how I missed that before but obviously that is an attempt to end run the blacklisting. I'm going to go ahead and block and leave it to someone else to review any unblock request or anything else to do with this user. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I noticed this edit, which is an obvious attempt to bypass the blacklist, and the previous rather telling edit summary, so I went ahead and blanked and protected both pages for now. —DoRD (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I would've indef'd (as kids with no clue shouldn't be messing around on here in the first place), but 6 months seems long enough for him to either sock a lot and get banned, or to forget about the whole thing and not come back. I have no patience for incompetent users; block certainly endorsed. —fetch·comms 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot for {{subst:nld}}

I've been tagging images for a few days now, and there is no bot going over the bad uploads right now. What's happened to the bot doing it before? Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that a bot was involved at all. Could you explain how it's been in the past? Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I can almost guarantee that the bot was run by Betacommand (now ∂ƒç˜´®, or whatever the symbol for change is) and the bot was stopped 1-2 years ago when he was banned. He's now unbanned, but he isn't operating bots outside of a narrow field. Protonk (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That sucks. We are going to be taking care of this, somehow. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Commons has one; see commons:User:MifterBot and/or commons:User:Filbot. —fetch·comms 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the bots that checked new uploads for problems, mine (ImageTaggingBot) went offline because something broke and I never got around to fixing it, while I believe ST47's bot (STbotI) was taken offline because of declining interest. I don't believe Betacommand ever ran a bot for this purpose. --Carnildo (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed

In line with the procedural notes I made here, this is a notification: Brews ohare (talk · contribs) has made an appeal to the Community at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Brews_ohare. In order to determine whether there is a clear community consensus (of uninvolved editors), input is required (and welcome). Note: I hold no view on the content of the appeal and this note has been made to fix a purely procedural issue that was missed at some point down the track. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like that discussion is closed, where is the next gigantic waste of time with everyone's favorite physicist and wiki-lawyer going to be hosted? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed it's closed now; it appears he is no longer appealing to the Community but has made an ArbCom appeal for amendment‎ (all of which makes the notification moot). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cpoy+Paste renaming

Wild Cherry vs. Prunus avium. Please, repair. JAn Dudík (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to, but for future reference we have a specific board for these requests: Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How many noticeboards do we have? lol Resolute 19:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Billions, surely. :) (I don't know, really, but a bunch of them are listed at the top of this page, though, under "Are you in the right place?" Not all of them. I don't see WP:CP there, for instance...) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't?! It's right there in the header, under "Content" and written in font size ~0.5px... Obviously the first place everyone looks! Jafeluv (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that header. The one I overlooked entirely. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've assisted moving two articles and talk pages back, and notified the copypasta mover about the proper way to request a page move when move doesn't work. Yworo (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Page-history deletion (or move) requested

Resolved

 – History split complete. –xeno^talk 18:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to request admin help with deleting (or moving) a portion of the page-history of the article Philip Hayes (general). I moved this article earlier today from my user-space (User:Nsk92/Sandbox2) to mainspace. In the past, when I developed an article in a sandbox, I moved it to mainspace via cut-and-paste, but today for some reason I decided to be lazy and used a page-move. This was rather stupid of me, since I had used this very sandbox for developing a number of other articles earlier, and now all that sandbox page-history has become a part of the page-history of Philip Hayes (general). I think this is pretty confusing for anyone who might need to look up the page-history of this article, as they'll be quite surprised all sorts of strange things in the history log that have nothing to do with Philip Hayes. I am not sure how exactly to fix this. I'd like to ask an admin either to simply delete all the revisions from the history of Philip Hayes (general) dated earlier than August 12, 2010, or, if possible, to move those revisions back to be a part of the page-history of User:Nsk92/Sandbox2. Sorry about creating this mess, and I'd be grateful for the help. Nsk92 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks a lot! Nsk92 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Approval for Bot Activity

I figure I should come here and get approval for this before asking a bot operator to carry this out. I notice there are alot of pages that still use the old </references> tag in the "References" field instead of the more accepted {{reflist}}. My proposal, is to find a bot (doesn't matter which one) get go through and change all instances of </references> to {{reflist}}. This would be a simple task for a bot and not really controversial since no change would take place in the actual text of the article except that the references section would be in smaller type. Does anyone have any objections to this? If not, could someone direct me to a bot operator who is willing to take care of this. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support So maybe some people will think this a pretty useless/minor change, but I like the way {{reflist}} condenses things a bit etc. You might as well do it with AWB, as I doubt there are too many to change that way. If consensus is for this, I'll help too. —fetch·comms 21:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support A worthwhile change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Since I totally suck at AWB (I tried once and goofed stuff up...I uninstalled it the same night), I have went ahead and asked User:Anomie, owner of various tasks bot AnomieBOT if, with consensus from this thread, their BOT could do the work. If the BOT and user can, it may be no work for anyone. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to remember there are some users that prefer the old ways. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• It would go through WP:BRFA naturally. And it's , with the slash at the end, btw, but I guess the ease of misspelling it is part of the point. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think as I said, there were objections to this when it was last mentioned, better allow some more comments. Off2riorob (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Should we move this to BRFA? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It does sound more like an AWB task ... but if I was able to get some help to program it, I could also run it if NH runs into any issues from the BFRA side of things...as it doesn't meet the usual task concepts of User:7SeriesBOT, I'd probably throw up a new one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - You'll want to know that there has been considerable resistance on ANI (read "threats of indef blocks, etc") to users making the exact edit you're proposing. I don't have any diffs handy, but I'll go looking for them. —DoRD (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I have inadvertently exaggerated. There has been resistance, but not to the extent I stated. Sorry for any undue alarm! (ANI all seems to run together after a while...) —DoRD (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

DoRD is correct; people rarely appreciate reference style being changed from how it was set; especially when done by automated processes. I seem to recall the larger font is preferred when there are fewer refs. I'm not sure why this is on AN, though. –xeno^talk 01:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I put it on AN since it needed admin approval and wasn't an incident needing immediate attention. But really, people like it the "large font" way? OK, if there are ANI posts that frown upon people making suggestions like this, then I withdraw my proposal and will not object to marking this resolved or archiving it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Neutralhomer and think they should all be the same. All we need to do is start a discussion at the Village Pump or with a RfC and obtain consensus. Neutralhomer, are you willing to do that? I'll support this bot task 100%. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, if I won't get into any trouble or upset anyone. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need admin approval, it needs community approval (and, of course, BAG Approval). Community approval is probably best sought on one of the pumps, or maybe WT:Citing sources, a MOS page, or similar. –xeno^talk 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree w/ Xeno's sentiment that these kinds of bot tasks are liable to generate an outsized amount of criticism relative to their usefulness. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Query – Wouldn't it be a better idea and more worthwhile on the technical side by tweaking Cite.php and our CSS files than using templates? –MuZemike 05:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, much better. If we really want one form of unified markup for the reference section, it can just be <references />. Of course, the only things that {{reflist}} is actually used for that <references /> currently can't be are multicolumn support and the ability to reduce the font size, and the "feature" allowing reduction in font size needs to be taken out behind the encyclopedia and shot, so it really would be enough to implement the back end of the colwidth= parameter from {{reflist}} in <references />; then we wouldn't need extra templates or (importantly) arguments about extra templates. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually perfer to use {{reflist}} (and have since I got here). It looks more like a bibliography section, small, out of the way, while <references /> is huge, bulky, looks out of place. These are just my personal opinions. I see less and less of <references />, which lead me to believe it was archaic and no longer necessary. I don't want to start a big "thing" over something, if there are sides that want <references /> and {{reflist}}, I have no problem with that, but if there is consensus for making {{reflist}} the standard for "Reference" sections, then I think we should go for it. Be it here, BAG or BRFA, wherever. I just don't want to get into a month's long discussion over something. This was just a suggestion I thought could make the project better, nothing more, nothing less. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the only things that {{reflist}} is actually used for that currently can't be are multicolumn support and the ability to reduce the font size, Is this true? Can <references /> handle WP:LDR?--SPhilbrickT 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts your good faith in making this section, you've just stumbled into a briar patch that has been a point of contention in the past. –xeno^talk 14:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

@SPhilbrick: sure, just use <references group="Foo">[some references...]</references>. This is mentioned at the link you gave, it's just "below the fold" at present, which I am about to change. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was mentioned above that some don't like {{reflist}} for few references. Would it be a better proposal, then, to have a bot find pages with at least X number of distinct refs (maybe 15 or 20?) using just <references /> and then convert that to {{reflist|2}}, to save space? I've personally been doing that, and using {{refbegin}} + {{refend}} whenever I see a long bibliography or notes section, just to help people with smaller screens or mobile browsers. Would this be a better compromise? —fetch·comms 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be cool with this, but I have been told a bot would have to do a database dump. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban of Jessica Liao

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

---

I have recognized what I consider to be the existing community ban on Jessica Liao (talk · contribs · block log) which was imposed by general consensus after a long history of sockpuppeting and abuse of email. She has historically been subject to Wikipedia:Deny recognition, but very little has been accomplished by denying her recognition as a persistent troublesome user who after a great deal of effort has never been able to edit productively. As is customary, should any administrator feel she should not be banned they may unblock her. I pray for the day she may be able to return and edit productively. Fred Talk 11:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection to the indef block. However, I don't think a "community ban" can logically be imposed unilaterally. You've blocked, and asked for review. If the review endorses you, and/or if no one unblocks then it becomes (in effect) a community ban. Pedantically,--Scott Mac 11:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not a community ban until there is consensus, right? Well, if this produces nothing else, at least it'll stop the endless questions on Y!A about when she'll be banned. sonia♫ 11:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, she will change her tune and endlessly ask how she can get off the banned list, or whatever. Jessica stopping is not an achievable goal. But if she wants to be banned, and she is defacto already banned, why not simply say so. Why are WE playing games? Fred Talk 12:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fred, it's bloody obvious that she has some serious, serious issues regarding basic comprehension skills, social skills, and general comptence. I am boggled by what Roger said below about her interpreting WP:OFFER as "use only one account until the 6-month-window is up" than "use no accounts and stay far away from Wikipedia until the 6-month-window is up". I'd also invite you (as well as the others here in this discussion) to please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive and judge who is the one playing games. –MuZemike 20:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd certainty endorse a ban of this editor per the evidence of long term socking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jessica Liao/Archive. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree; although I already consider this user de facto banned, I'd support a formal ban. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I always thought she was formally banned. Obviously incapable of playing by the rules around here, and an annoyance at best. I endorse a ban on her. —fetch·comms 20:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Just so people know, I offered her the standard offer on IRC almost two weeks ago. She has stayed away from the site with a few hiccups (don't worry, there were no socks) but I feel that she is honestly sick of working, being reverted and blocked. I share the apprehension that others here share but I have told her that I will work with her should she ever return. I also told her that if she socked, I would withdraw all support and never interact with her again. I know that two weeks isn't much but who knows, maybe she has changed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I need to take a good look at exactly how she edits and goes wrong. She tries so hard, but is also a determined sockmaster. The last bunch, of four, were all sleepers she had made at least a month ago. I would welcome anyone spending the time she needs to get up to speed. Fred Talk 00:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

For information, I've also made the standard offer to her on a couple or three occasions over the past year. Her counter argument has been that she's not socking because she only uses one account at a time.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note further to 'socking', I was contacted on irc today by someone who claimed to be in support of her, and only after issuing an ultimatum, admitted to being her. The fact that she lied in the very first place just screams that she can't be trusted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Community Ban - Bans are pretty irrelevant when it comes to punishing otherwise blocked editors: either you can edit or you can't. But it does provide us with additional powers to revert her edits without violating WP:3RR. Deny Recognition is kind of a joke anyway and obviously it hasn't worked in this situation as she can just go get her negative attention from Y!A and point people there to her socking. I say ban so her socks can be reverted on sight without violating 3RR. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note - Per our best practices on community bans, this should be listed for 48 hrs minimum and then closed and have the ban listed (if approved) by an otherwise uninvolved admin. I originally prompted Fred on this, but I think I'm uninvolved in the particulars of Jessica Liao's cases and can close in a couple of days (as can any other uninvolved admin, if you want to after the minumum period expires or if i'm being sluggish). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Ban obviously. She's already been tagged as banned the other day anyway. Just a formality; and as was said above, her torrent of socks can be reverted with no 3RR violation... Doc9871 (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban (as stated before), pretty much per Burpelson AFB. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support/endorse/whatever. Make her solely the probelm of Y!A, not good-faith editors reverting her. TFOWR 12:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban so that we can insta-revert any edits from the sockdrawer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse – about 100 socks and counting. I don't know why we are seriously discussing this, given the harassment she has engaged the past year or so post-block on-wiki, on IRC, and on the unblock-en-l mailing list. She clearly has some personal issues that need to be resolved via a trained professional; we here cannot help her with that. –MuZemike 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We are seriously discussing this because adding someone to the Banned Users list requires either a community ban (this) or an arbcom ban (not worth pursuing) or a Jimbo ban (he doesn't anymore), and having them on that list formalizes a set of responses beyond what we formally allow admins to do with socks of merely indefinitely blocked users. It does make a difference. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, George, but did you stop to think that she may be laughing her butt off or otherwise taunting us off-wiki as a result of this rather pointless discussion? I know of several other de facto banned users in which that exactly happens whenever their names are mentioned here on a new edit (via edit-stalking bots). But I suppose process is process, and we have to follow it, regardless of any consequences that may come forth as a result of a lack of hindsight. –MuZemike 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

She is- or at least, someone else is. Y!A as usual, but on a number of other forums as well. sonia♫ 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The consequences really are only a slight wasteage of time. The benefits are that we have a consistent standard on true bans. I don't see much if any dissent here on the outcome, but we have never had a "This longtime admin / ex-arbcom member can just say you're banned" policy or precedent. I think the community is unsuprisingly supporting his judgement here, but it is worthwhile making sure that the actual true ban is per extant policy. If we want to expand the ban process such that certain longtime trusted admins / ex-arbcom members / whoever can ban people who are indefblocked already and still abusing, that's fine, but a separate question. I don't know that I'd support changing the policy but if you want to propose that, open a thread and do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with George and will go a step further: Why does anyone care what she's doing on Y!A or other websites anyway? To hell with them and her. Let's deal with our own website and leave her irrelevant off-wiki attention-whoring to the other websites. If she gets jollies from this discussion, who cares? It doesn't make any difference. Shunning the normal discussion process, or any other process, because of what we think she may or may not like is just another way of acknowledging her. We should only be concerned with the process and the Wiki and not let her foolishness prevent us from treating this as just another in a long line of boring, pointless sockmasters. THAT'S what "deny recognition" ought to be about, rather than trying to ignore the elephant in the room. Ban, tag, and revert. Initiate a rangeblock, if prudent. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - Sockpuppetry is not tolerated as well as incivility or personal attacks are not tolerated. She has shown to have clearly disruptive editing, which we users will not allow either. On top of that, she has also exhausted all of our patience. So, with those policies I have stated in my comment, "enough is enough." We should revert her edits as stated above and in addition to the block, her email priviliges and talk page priviliges should be disabled indefinitely.Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I figured this had already happened ages ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fully Endorse I tried to help her understand, but at this point I've basically come to accept the fact that she's just fucking with us, and that she has no interest in ever being a part of Wikipedia. Sodam Yat (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support formalising so that good faith editors who deny recognition will not be subject to limitations and the risk of being blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2010 (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.

Ban her from the relevant irc channels as well perhaps?

For those who have dealt with this user, and use irc, you'll likely know what I'm talking about. Just as she has gone on and on about whatever current state she is on wikipedia(banned, de-facto banned, etc), she goes on and on about it in our pms or in the channel, asking how she can be unbanned or something similar, refusing to hear what we have to say and just going in never ending circles. Banning her from the main rooms would stem the flow at least of the above from happening in the channels.

If she wants to appeal her ban, spamming the irc channels and our pms isn't the way to do it. She must do it from arbcom. I would like a perma-ban regarding possibly #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-spi, or any other channels people are sick of seeing her complain in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd have to take it up with the chanops. I don't think anyone here has the power to ban Liao from IRC channels. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 01:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A not so subtle vandal

Resolved

 – 67.9.250.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made one edit and got warned for it, nothing else needed for now — Gavia immer (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.roblox.com/Forum/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=31535256

I'm not sure if it has been deleted yet, but just a heads up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.8.224 (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal: User:NatDemUK

Resolved

 – Enacted. –xeno^talk 18:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

SPI Backlog

It's already tagged, the bot is still down: and it's growing. 33 open cases (hardly a record, I'm sure, but it needs attention). Ah, "volunteerism"... Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to take care of some of the more obvious duck situations. -- Atama頭 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicates

Hello everyone! I noticed that there are a lot of duplicate files (even if only a few is in Category:Duplicate). I have cleaned up some (mostly by transferring one to Commons and delete all local versions). But many of the images are fair use - I asume that even fair use images can be deleted as dupes? If someone wants to give a hand feel free :-) I think the easiest way to find the dupes is to use this tool. And if all usage for some reason cannot be replaced then a redirect will work. By the way there is a work going on to find a solution with the PBB Protein files (they should probably all be deleted as useless) so if someone wants to work on the dupes I suggest to skip those to start with. Unless ofcourse some admin know about protein files and would like to do the cleanup? --MGA73 (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate files are deletable under F1, as long as all the backlinks are fixed; redirects would seem to be an option since they are cheap in resource terms. Rodhullandemu 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The downside with redirects is that articles using the redirect will not appear in the "file links" section of the file page, which is very unhelpful where non-free content is concerned. So, probably best not to keep image redirects. If there are too many links to fix manually, surely some nice person with AWB could oblige. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that redirects should be avoided if possible. But sometimes fancy templates make that hard. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do a search for redirects in file space and see how many is used and how many is unused. --MGA73 (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Humour, but a serious point

http://www.tomscott.com/warnings/ - this has a serioius underlying point, namely that just appearing in a newspaper does not mean that data is independent or reliable - a lot of material in news reports is spoon-fed by the subject or some other interested party - I have seent his referred to as "fact laundering" or "informnation laundering". Nothing new, but stated in an amusing way I though people might enjoy. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "informnation" to be but a mere pipedream... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

A strange anomaly

Not sure if this is the proper venue for this but Ill post the question and go from there. I have discovered what is best described as a very odd anomoly. The article for James Parker (US Army officer) redirects to James Parker (Medal of Honor). Whats strange is when you look at the James Parker (US Army officer) it doesn't redirect UNTIL you go to edit it, then it shows as the proper article. Im not sure how to fix this one so any help or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. --Kumioko (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... I think AWB did something. —fetch·comms 18:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the article James Parker (US Army officer) by using a trick to get rid of some weird whitespace at the end. My trick was to add some dummy text and then remove it. Otherwise, Wikipedia thought I was making a null edit. -Colfer2 (talk) 01:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Notice of sanction being applied to Betacommand/Delta

• Please take discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand as it may not be seen here and unnecessarily divides the discussion. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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

---

while investigating [ this complaint] made by John Nagel -- which I could not confirm -- I discovered that Betacommand/Delta made a number of unexplained changes to his monobook.js file which appear to enable certain abilities in Twinkle. Twinkle is a program which allows the user to make automated edits at a rapid rate -- which AFAIK Betacommand/Delta is not allowed to do except for one specific case. I am not a Twinkle expert, nor do I care to be, so I reverted those changes & protected the page until he provides adequate explanation for each of those changes. (I admit, they all may be reasonable & do not allow him to make automated edits, but this user has demonstrated in the past that he should be extended good faith.) I am simply announcing my actions here so that the proper discussion may take place on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand.
PS, before I could leave this message, I was quickly reprimanded by one individual who thinks Betacommand/Delta can do no wrong. Little wonder it is hard to keep his behavior reasonable. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Heres the monobook and the edit history - that stuff looks like a work of art to me and I wouldn't touch it unless I understood it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a reason to believe that the rest of the content you removed was also violating the restrictions, or was there another reason for removing ~48000 bytes of his monobook, most of which was unrelated to twinkle? In addition, instead of archiving and completely ignoring valid requests for clarification after performing an administrative action, please provide the place where the limitations were extended - this seems to indicate that the restriction would expire in July of this year. Thanks. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops, will comment on the other page. :D Ale_Jrb^talk 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle cannot make "automated edits". It still needs human intervention to click a button. I agree with Ale_Jrb. Most of the edits are only configuring the Twinkle (such as Twinkle's window height). When other users raised concern, you consider it as "doesn't deserve a response" and archiving it,[128] which is like I did not hear that. Convince us how configuring Twinkle's options can be seen as a violation of ArbCom ruling. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Hammersoft's post on my page? Hammersoft would object to someone sanctioning Betacommand/Delta no matter what he did -- & probably before the Admin took action. I thought that was as obvious as needing to click on the "Save page" widget to save one's changes. -- llywrch (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2010 (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.

Real-life confidence men

Does the Living people section of Real-life confidence men violate WP:BLP? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems so. I'm assuming each of the listed BIO is referenced. However, it would certainly be preferable for each person in that list to be referenced at THIS article as well. Otherwise, you could technically remove all of them from that list for being unreferenced. I suppose our only choices are: do we take some time to pull references over from the bio articles, do we wipe them from the list, or do we tag it and leave it? Kindzmarauli (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The following meta-text is revealed in the living people section if you edit Real-life confidence men

"This is a list of known living con men. To conform to Wikipedia:Libel, please do not list anyone who has not confessed or been convicted. Accusation is not the same as guilt."

The same text is included as documentation for the equivalent template {{Con artists}}. --Penbat (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimers without sources still violate WP:BLP. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of blocks

Don't we have enough recent screw ups to navel gaze about that we need to dredge up events from 4 years ago? - Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. User:♠[129] and user:$2[130] were indefinitely blocked because of their usernames. I don't see how these names violate username policy and request that an admin review the blocks. The admin who blocked them is inactive. Thanks. SwarmTalk 03:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Are either of them active or requesting an unblock? Protonk (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) No, I am making the request. They were blocked as newcomers back in 2006 :P. Username policy at the time of the blocks, however, did not prohibit these usernames, and stated that administrators should only take action on usernames if there was a consensus that the name was inappropriate (barring, of course, usernames that were specifically prohibited). It also detailed changing usernames. These users were blocked without any complaints or requests to change their name. Policy or consensus didn't support the blocks in 2006, and doesn't support them now. It's for that reason that I make this request. SwarmTalk 04:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC) So my followup question is, we are unblocking the accounts because? I understand the policy question, but what's the point. there hasn't been a human behind that username for 4 years. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) There may be no point in unblocking them, but there's no point in leaving them blocked either. The only difference between the two options is that unblocking would right a wrong. In other words, this error should be fixed. SwarmTalk 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC) There is no point at all in forcing the pursuit of a nullity, and in any case there are good (but WP:BEANS sensitive) reasons not to allow usernames like $N. I see no good in this. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I'd love to discuss why you think "$N" shouldn't be allowed. This is not the place, but leave me a note on my talk page if you'd like to elaborate. With respect this is a simple request that doesn't have anything to do with you whatsoever, so I'm wondering why you're concerning yourself with it. SwarmTalk 05:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC) It's up to the user themself to request unblock - there's good odds that the person has a new userid, and is happily editing Wikipedia - we sure wouldn't want to implement a case of WP:SOCK accidentally. There is no valid reason for you to request their unblock at this time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC) I was requesting a review of the block, because the block appears completely inconsistent with policy. I figured that's about as valid a reason as I could ever give. Not unblocking simply because of a WP:SOCK concern is completely reasonable. SwarmTalk 11:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC) Still, i would point out that even a review is fairly senseless seeing the amount of time that has passed. In the past four years a lot of rules have been changed, which means that any old block such as this one will have been done under other conditions. For example, we used to prohibit names that contained non-latin characters (Names containing things such as Chinese characters were forbidden) - Nowadays such a block wouldn't make sense either. If there is a more recent username block its fine to discuss, but i believe that the horse is death and decayed in this case. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)0 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.

Edit needed on protected template

Can someone please remove the link to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion from Template:Tasks? The link should've been removed two years ago when Requests for expansion was tagged as historical. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

1. There is no linmk to that page anymore. That link was removed in December 2008. The link "Wikipedia:Writing better articles" now links to Wikipedia:Writing better articles.
2. To request edits on protected pages, please go to their respective talk pages, and make an {{editprotected}} request.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia exporting its problems to other WikiMedia projects?

No administrator attention required.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Or is this just a coincidence? Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Wikiversity seems to be a playground for people banned from Wikipedia. Many problem users spill over onto smaller Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects, and sometimes they are productive. Ooh, this is fun: Abd blocked Ottava Rima, so Ottava Rima unblocked himself and says he'll desysop Abd. fetches popcorn Do they not have rules against wheel warring and unblocking yourself over there? Fences&Windows 23:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC) It would be a good idea to let other projects manage themselves by their own standards. No, Wikiversity does not do things the same way we do. And it would also be good to let users who've left here by choice or by sanction to be free of having their actions commented upon here, which is nothing more than rubbernecking. Jehochman Talk 00:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I'll get back to you when the hive mind gains omnipotence. Also, isn't this post a little absurd given that you are suggesting that a certain editor make his way to wikiversity? Protonk (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC) I started editing there two days ago, see here. After I told Brews Ohare that Wikiversity may be a good place for him, I tried it out myself. It is amazing how much you can get done there, compared to here. I got a welcome message from Ottava and I saw on his talk page that Abd is also there. So, perhaps we can say that that place is like the Wild West in more than one respect. But if you are interested in creating new content instead of arguing with other editors, that is ideal. Count Iblis (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Sure it is; we tell people to go to other project to earn a return... when they pick one, they do what they do, which may-well be what they've done before. Different sorts of people will find their ways to different sorts of sister projects. w:simple: gets the ones with the most garish sigs, for example. v: gets the academics. Hopefully the regulars on the other projects can cope with it all and don't get too annoyed with this sort of influx. Sometimes it works-out ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 02:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on Logic Wireless wiki page

Resolved

 – Vandal indef-blocked

Hello: There has been a user named LonnyBaxter that's been vandalizing the Logic Wireless page. I've fixed it about 6 times so far, but I feel this individual is completely insane. We have only written non-biased materials that are backed by several reliable sources, ranging from Forbes to CNN. We are a young company that's gained fame in the telecom field by inventing the world's first projector cell phone. Is there anyway we can have an edit protected lock on the Logic Wireless profile? Thanks you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelleyboothbishop (talk • contribs) 05:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Lonnybaxter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now blocked as a vandalism-only account. Shelleyboothbishop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), I recommend that you read WP:COI and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations if you intend to continue editing Logic Wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).  Sandstein  06:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing votes

Several days ago, I initiated a discussion at Talk:Hyundai Elantra#Merger of Elantra LPI Hybrid to merge the contents of Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid to Hyundai Elantra.

One of the voters, Mariordo decided to canvass support for his point-of-view by messaging four other users, [131], [132], [133], and [134].

This is not the first time that Mariordo has done this. At a previous discussion to merge Toyota Camry Hybrid with Toyota Camry (XV40) the user in question canvassed five votes from users that would support his point-of-view: [135], [136], [137],[138], [139]. An administrator at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid even stated that canvassing votes is not allowed due to it undermining the consensus-building process.

Of the four users that the user in question has requested support from, all of them voted in his favour at the previous merger proposal at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid (the primary topic and rationale behind both mergers are identical).

I have attempted to reason with Mariordo at his talk page ([140]), but he maintains that, "inviting other editors to participate is allowed", despite the clear guidelines of WP:CANVASS, a policy that I have made clear to Mariordo on several occasions.

All that I am requesting is for the integrity of Wikipedia's consensus building procedure be maintained. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I get an OTRS volunteer please?

Six days ago, an editor uploaded File:Selena12.jpg claiming they had submitted permissions for this photograph to the OTRS team. With six days gone by and no response from the team, I am doubting that. Would an OTRS volunteer please confirm? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, I searched the OTRS system yesterday for evidence on another one of his images (File:Selenagrammy.jpg) and failed to find it, so I tagged it with {{npd}}, which sets the countdown clock. I tagged this one for speedy. I'm not entirely confident in the OTRS search system; I have searched before for key words and failed to find something only to locate it through an alternative method. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything recent. The only ticket I found is a query sent by the uploader twenty-five days ago[141] asking how he could verify the image's copyright. (I've searched by the image title, the sender, and names within the email and found nothing else.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Unless his mother is a professional photographer, it's unlikely that she was allowed to get close enough to take the grammy photoshoot. According to the photographer who alerted me to the issue, here, access to the press area is strictly regulated. Too, the image has been previously published on the internet. It might go a long way if he can provide a high resolution original. I'm concerned that there may be some other issues. See File:Selenaperfume.jpg: another low-res image, and this one has some kind of water-mark. And he seems to be uploading and re-uploading these images. File:Selena12.jpg was deleted once following a PUF discussion in June (see Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2010 June 22#File:Selena12.jpg; it is the same image) and deleted as File:Selena22.jpg; in those discussions, he indicates that he intends to persist: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 21#File:Selena22.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Selena22.jpg. At least he says he'll slow down here, but I'm alarmed by the statement that he has "way more". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, with this in mind I think a stern warning to the person is in order. Being uncertain of the copyright status of an image is one thing. Actively lying about contacting the OTRS team in an attempt to avoid further scrutiny of your uploads is quite another. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The letter isn't quite like that; he's claiming still that the photograph belongs to his family. He's asking how he can prove it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Checkuser and Oversight appointments

Following the call for applicants, the Arbitration Committee has reviewed applications and is now actively considering the following candidates for Checkuser and Oversight permissions. Unless otherwise stated below, any appointments will come into effect on 1 September 2010.

Checkuser:

• Frank (talk · contribs · logs)
• MuZemike (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tiptoety (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · logs)

Oversight:

• Bastique (talk · contribs · logs) From December 2010, when he leaves the Wikimedia Foundation's staff.
• Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · logs)
• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · logs)
• MBisanz (talk · contribs · logs) From 10 November 2010, when his term on the Audit Subcommittee ends.
• Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · logs)

Between now and 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC), the community is invited to comment on the suitability of the candidates. As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

How do you {{C-upload}} an SVG file?

Resolved

 – No administrator attention required. For future questions, of this nature, wp:help desk or WP:VPT may be more appropriate. –xeno^talk 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the process for {{C-upload}} of an SVG image? MediaWiki auto-magically converts SVGs to PNGs before displaying, preventing a copy of the original source from being accessed. Additionally, both the image upload and page move functions check a file's MIME type against the filename extension. As a result, only a PNG file is available to upload to the English Wikipedia and it needs to be loaded into a location requiring an SVG formatted file. --Allen3 ^talk 01:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What's the file you want to upload here? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Same way you "c-upload" any other image: go to the image description page, right-click on the image, select "save link target as" (or whatever your browser calls it. Not "save image as"), save the image on your hard drive, and upload it to enwiki the same way you'd upload any other image. --Carnildo (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's another way to do it as well; to take a random example, look at File:Blank globe.svg. Using Internet Explorer, I rightclicked the file name in the line reading "Blank_globe.svg‎ (SVG file, nominally 210 × 210 pixels, file size: 42 KB)" and clicked "Save target as"; this put it into the folder where I told it to go on my hard drive. Can't imagine that you'll have any uploading problems. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, rightclicking the file name link instead of the displayed image appears to be the trick for obtaining the actual SVG image. With the SVG source, I agree that everything should work the same as for any other image format. --Allen3 ^talk 03:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mutants and Masterminds Roleplaying Game - Redirect Link needed but can't be added by non-administrators

The link does not work properly (i.e. go to the correct page- it says that there's not a page about the subject). I tried to create a proper redirect (#REDIRECT [[142]]) but for whatever reason the page creation was locked to prevent vandalism and I was directed this way to create a notice. That's what I'm doing. Thank you. Mrobviousjosh (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify? Mutants and masterminds seems to redirect fine, and has been doing so since 2006. Mutants and Masterminds also redirects fine, and has done so since 2009. What redirect were you trying to create exactly? -- Atama頭 16:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro)

Could an admin please review the NAC closure of this AfD? It was closed as "speedy keep" after 5 days. I did not participate in this AfD but my feeling is that this AfD was not suitable for a NAC closure. With only 4 keep !votes, plus the nom arguing for deletion, I don't think it was in the SNOW range. The nominator did not withdraw the nomination and in fact argued rather strenuously in favor of deletion during the AfD; the rather heated and contentious nature of the discussion (with various accusations and counter-accusations of bad faith etc) shows that this was far from a non-controversial AfD and thus a poor candidate for the NAC. Plus one of the keep !votes and the non-admin closer clearly used faulty logic in their arguments. The nominator suggested deletion based on the contention that the two articles in question were unneeded content forks of another existing article. The closer stated that "Come on, SnottyWong, if the main problem isn't notability, you know better than to bring it here". Of course, there are many other valid reasons to delete an article, apart from notability, and a content fork argument is an example of such a reason (whether or not that argument was persuasive in this case). The nominator has complained at the closer's talk page, but the closer indicated that he is not going to reconsider his NAC close. I think an admin review of this close is in order. Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Second this, This was a completely inappropriate closure, and I've observed multiple other instances where this user performed inappropriate speedy keep, non admin closures, and discussion with them has achieved nothing. I don't feel they understand deletion policy, nor NAC guidelines enough to perform non admin closures. Swarm^Talk 12:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Thirded. Inappropriate NAC but leave closed with leave to renominate. The participants were attacking each other as much as arguing whether or not the article should be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've reviewed it, and also would say it's an inappropriate NAC. Furthermore, it's very poor form to place a warning about personal attacks in a closure rationale, so that's another reason this ought not to be just left as-is. I agree with Ron's suggestion, but I would like to leave it to another admin to alter the close, since I've previously reverted two of the same user's non-admin closes already: here and here. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that at the very least the closing statement needs to be changed by an admin since the current closing statement clearly uses faulty logic (as noted above, lack of notability is not the only valid argument in favor of deletion). I am fairly neutral on the issue of reopening for another few days/relisting or whatever. Nsk92 (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) The discussion was closed with an incorrect use of speedy keep, which is only to be used in very specific cases, so I have reinstated the AfD discussion. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks DoRD. I hope it was not overly harsh (usually I'm happy to see non-admins helping reduce the workload at AfD), but I've asked that the user not perform any more NACs for the next couple of months, as a pattern is emerging here. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed - if this editor doesn't even know deletion policy (let alone the criteria for Speedy Keep) they shouldn't even be commenting at AfDs, let alone closing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm the original AfD nom. Most of my thoughts are already on Erpert's talk page, so clearly I'm of the opinion that this was an inappropriate close. Whether or not Erpert has a history of inappropriate NAC's, I don't know. I don't think that reopening the AfD will actually accomplish anything (which is why I didn't start this discussion myself), although I think that strongly encouraging Erpert to refrain from NAC's is a very good idea, as he doesn't appear to be particularly capable of making unbiased decisions. Further evidence of this point is the fact that Erpert gave User:Oakshade a {{WikiPint}} on his talk page here. Since Oakshade was the user who was clearly making assumptions of bad faith during the AfD, it seems odd for the closer to "spread the good cheer and camaraderie" with him directly under my warnings. In any case, the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} userbox on Erpert's user page would seem to be a lost cause. SnottyWong ^gossip 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know. Politely telling someone that "If you weren't such a raging dick about it, I'd consider withdrawing the nomination." is not a smart thing to say, and pointing to policy on this, is not something that is necessarily held against the person pointing to the policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I never said or implied that my reaction to Oakshade's assumptions of bad faith was entirely appropriate, although I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion. SnottyWong ^confer 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think this is another sign of the common misunderstandings around SK. It is commonly treated as some sort of "super keep" rather than a set of limited technical decisions about an XfD debate. No comment yet on the actual debate. Protonk (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The discussion has been reopened and more comments have been added. I agree this was an inappropriate close Protonk (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• First of all, neither the {{WikiPint}} nor the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} templates have anything to do with this situation. Yes, some people have said that they don't think I understand WP:NAC, but I have responded to the claims explaining why I do understand, to which there was no response. Thus, I thought people saw my side. And where in WP:SNOW does it state a set amount of time to wait in order to speedily close? It seems like SnottyWong is mad and just following me around because I don't agree with him/her, and using my later contributions to try to convince people into thinking I recruited Oakshade or something--and now several people are on SW's side by coming here. I am not a bad editor, so please don't treat me like one. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Black Kite, I do know the deletion policy. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In that case, why did you write "And you said yourself that the problem wasn't notability, so why bring it to AfD in the first place?" Deletion policy clearly states that content forking is also a perfectly good reason to bring something to AfD - and that's exactly what the AfD nomination gave as its criteria. I may be missing something, but it does look like you were saying that (lack of) notability was the only reason something may be deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • So you'll be able to tell us which Speedy Keep Criteria this deletion discussion met, right? Protonk (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Erpert doesn't understand when it's appropriate to do NACs and should be told to refrain from making them in future.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. There are 5 situations in which the Speedy Keep might be applied, and none of them work here. The first doesn't apply because Snottywong neither withdrew or "failed to advance" the deletion, on the contrary. The nomination wasn't vandalism or disruption, Snottywong isn't banned, the page isn't a policy or guideline, and the article isn't linked from the main page. Those are the only times that you can apply a Speedy Keep. -- Atama頭 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Are y'all aware of WP:BATTLE? (And Bali ultimate, don't talk about me like I'm not here.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • One more thing: WP:SK says "reasons for a speedy keep include", not are. There's a difference. (Also remember WP:AGF.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I didn't think that the closing was done maliciously, only that the use of SK was incorrect. There may be some wiggle room in the guideline, but after five days, the closing was anything but "speedy". If you had allowed the discussion to have its full run, or perhaps snow closed it instead, we wouldn't be having this discussion. —DoRD (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I also don't think it was a malicious close. It was only incorrect. I assume good faith, but I don't have to assume you're correct. -- Atama頭 20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Erpert: Several experienced admins (Paul Erik, DoRD, Black Kite, Protonk, Atama) have told you that your NAC was inappropriate - and yet you are still stubbornly refusing to admit your mistake. You should try to listen to people's advice that is offered to you in good faith and learn from it instead of stubbornly digging in your heels and assuming that people are out to get you. It has been explained to you that the standard 5 criteria for speedy keep did not apply here. If you are trying to argue that this was a SNOW keep case (in which case you should have stated so in your close), that does not hold up either. At the time of your close, there were only 4 keep !votes, one of them (by Milowent) was obviously faulty - that argument was that "the nomination seems to be about organization, not notability". As was pointed out to you above, making an assertion that a particular article is a redundant content fork is a perfectly valid deletion rationale, distinct from the issues of notability. Yet you yourself also repeated that faulty argument in your close by saying: "Come on, SnottyWong, if the main problem isn't notability, you know better than to bring it here". 4 keep !votes, one of them based on faulty reasoning, plus the nominator still strenuously arguing his case in the AfD does not make for a SNOW keep case, not by a long shot. You should also remember that the spirit of NAC is to be used for only clear-cut and noncontroversial cases, which this one, fairly clearly was not. The requirements of WP:NACD are quite stringent, both in their letter and in their spirit, exactly in order to avoid having to have prolonged discussions of controversial NAC closes like this one. You should listen to the advice of the more experienced users (including 5 admins!) offered to you here in good faith and take it to heart. You also seem to profoundly misunderstand AGF. No-one here says that you acted maliciously or with any kind of bad intent. What people are saying is that your actions were misguided and were based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the relevant policies. Nsk92 (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'd suggest a ban for Erpert from closing AfDs since he is clearly not competent enough at this time to do this task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.191.215 (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really think that is necessary. Epert made a mistake, it was reverted, it isn't the end of the world. Obv. I agree broadly w/ Nsk92's comments that Erpert take the comments onboard, but a ban or prohibition is a little much. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with all of the criticisms of the AfD closed. But Erpert raises one good point: the SK criteria say the reasons for speedy keep include, not are. I think it should be are as SK has always been understood by the criteria as a limited ground for closure adequately covered by the five reasons (in particular, Reason 2 is broad enough). Thoughts? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My first thought is to change the word from include to are. SK has (or should have) a narrow, technical meaning just as CSD does. Use of SK outside of that narrow, technical meaning invariably results in threads like this and lots of ink spilled over something which could have been resolved through either patience or clarity. Protonk (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd agree with this. Clause 2 of SK pretty much covers everything else anyway. I can't think of many situations where those five criteria don't meet the point. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I see where you're coming from Mkativerata, but we're allways going to end up eventually having a situation where the strict rules don't work, so keeping all our policies and guidelines flexible does help, even if at times it seems it doesn't. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I know from experience that SKs are pretty rare and in practice, we tend to be pretty strict on the use of this procedure to close AfDs. I really do think that it should be less ambiguously stated that SKs must fall under one of the 5 criteria listed, simply changing "include" to "are" should suffice as Mkativerata suggests. I believe doing so will update the guideline to reflect how it is actually perceived, which I think is the best reason to change a guideline. -- Atama頭 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I find it amusing that Erpert is asking people to AGF, yet he continually insists that everything I do is because "I'm mad that everyone disagrees with me at the AfD, and I'm trying to get back at him", or something along those lines (i.e. a clear assumption of bad faith), despite the fact that this discussion was independently created by someone else without my involvement, and countless editors have told him he was wrong. I was actually going to forget about the AfD and move on, because it seemed like a lost cause, and I didn't care enough to pursue it. Now that the AfD is actually getting some delete votes, I hope it's becoming clearer to Erpert how disruptive his NAC was. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 23:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not a helpful comment. Please consider retracting it or refactoring it. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Protonk: Your comments here have been somewhat less than helpful, Snottywong, so I'll add that you should probably disengage from the situation. —DoRD (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• To answer Nsk92's latest comment: you say no one thinks I acted in bad faith, right? Well, what am I supposed to think when an ANI report is started about me? And I understand that several admins have brought it to my attention, but I see it as their opinions, not my misunderstanding of guidelines. If people still think I misunderstand, I think a little rewording (as mentioned above) of WP:SK wouldn't be such a bad idea. (And just for the record, I haven't even looked at that AfD since this started because I think it's best if I'm uninvolved from here on out.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • When you see a WP:AN report regarding you, you are supposed to read it and try to listen to the substance of what people are saying instead of taking it personally. The report was filed to request an admin to review a non-admin closure of an AfD; WP:AN is a perfectly proper and standard venue for making such requests. If you read my original post and the posts by other users here carefully, you'll see that nobody is accusing you of acting maliciously, just of making a mistake out of misunderstanding. That is what you are supposed to think. Now, if five experienced admins offer you their informed opinion - you should listen to them. These are experienced users who have been Wikipedia editors a lot longer than you have, and who are admins, meaning particularly trusted users of the community specifically charged with enforcing Wikipedia policies, particularly in the area of AfD closing -you really should assume that they know the issue better than you do. There are several other users here telling you the same thing. Assuming that everyone else here is wrong and you alone are right is precisely the wrong attitude to take here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, I've been here since 2005; this account is new because I retired from another account--and no, it isn't sockpuppetry because I haven't even so much as logged into the old account since creating this one. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, who is this suspicious IP, that just registered today, that is suggesting a ban? Erpert (let's talk about it) 01:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over WP:SK. That guideline is only for the reasons outlined in that page. If one closes early for any other reason such as WP:SNOW, then that would be an invocation of WP:IAR and when doing that, one shouldn't bold speedy keep. (the AFD in question didn't qualify for either IMHO) I think that the confusion comes from the "speedy" check box provided by the popular Mr Zman closing script which many people think needs to be checked whenever closing early (which has led to some ridiculous closes such as "speedy no consensus") and from the common but misguided "speedy keep" !vote seen in a lot of AFDs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, this is an instance of a confusion that I know that you've encountered before, and that I certainly have. People think that "speedy keep" is analogous to "speedy delete", when in fact it isn't, and what they are really talking about are snowball keeps. Even the latter isn't what people sometimes think it to be. Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The minor rewording of WP:SK that was suggested above is done. It now simply says "Reasons for a speedy keep decision are" to avoid giving the impression that there are unmentioned instances in which a speedy keep can occur. The sentence that says "WP:SNOW is a valid keep criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for speedy keep, but its use is sometimes discouraged" is really vague and unhelpful to the SK guidelines also. Swarm^Talk 03:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is nonetheless true. I support rewording SK to make its extant meaning more clear, but we can't really change SNOW as much. I'll take a look. Protonk (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Beyond this recent problematic AfD closure, I agree that there is a mistaken impression out there that a "SNOW keep" is a specific instance of a WP:SPEEDYKEEP. So Protonk's edit here is helpful in reducing this common misunderstanding. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • This has been discussed extensively at Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep#Explicitly exclude SNOW and the discussions that it links to, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 06:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I just thought we needed to further clarify the difference between Speedy Keep and SNOW close- which is exactly what you did, Protonk. Thank you. Swarm^Talk 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• A version of that sentence was added May 2009 (WT:Speedy keep#Explicitly exclude SNOW), but "its use is discouraged" was removed (December 2009, restored after discussion) or qualified (April 2010), and the whole sentence was rewritten June 2010 (WT:Speedy keep#Snow Again). I agree with Protonk's edit, but getting the new subsection to stick may require a well-publicized discussion at WT:Speedy keep. Flatscan (talk) 04:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to revert it if it changed the meaning (or there are complaints), but the sentence is an awkward fit in the old section, which I would much prefer to be a short list of acceptable cases. It seems to have grown with provisos and addenda. So it goes. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If the wording of WP:SK is clearer now, can we close this discussion? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • To clarify, I think the subsection is better, but an editor may have objections, months later and without context. I've already linked this discussion, which may suffice. Flatscan (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal: User:Erpert

Thread retitled from "Topic ban proposal".

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.

While there's a fairly strong consensus that there's a problem with some of Erpert's NACs, I don't see a strong enough consensus below for imposing a formal topic ban. I would urge Erpert to stay away from NACs for a while -- perhaps noting their opinion and making sure it matches the final admin closure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

---

There have been problems with Erpert's NACs for weeks or months, and each time he has dismissed concerns. "I understand that several admins have brought it to my attention, but I see it as their opinions, not my misunderstanding of guidelines" shows a blunt refusal to admit ever being wrong. I do not have confidence in their judgement, so I would back a topic ban on closing AfDs. Fences&Windows 11:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. As far as the "SK" thing goes, I made that mistake once so I'm not going to slam him for that. However, I would suggest that Erpert voluntarily take a break from closing AFDs for a while. I've done that a few times after I've messed up. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Naw. He seems intent on not getting the message, but this isn't that big of a deal that anyone needs to be topic-banned or otherwise restricted. Protonk (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - There is very little need for non-admins to be speedy-closing AfD's. When there is a need, it is overwhelmingly obvious (i.e. when the nominator withdraws the nomination). Since this user apparently has a propensity for closing a relatively large number of AfD's, and since he doesn't appear to understand the circumstances under which it is appropriate to do so, I would support a ban on closing AfD's. SnottyWong ^communicate 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - take three months off from closures and gain some more experience , you should do this on your own anyways without this motion . Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• The rationales on a few of the pointy baseball AfD closes weren't exactly great (although I don't fault the closes), but there are a couple of disturbing closes that I came across-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facebook revolution, where it was closed as nomination withdrawn when there was an outstanding delete opinion; another one is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial attacks on Michelle Obama, closed as a speedy redirect (with no objection to someone else performing a merger), within a day of the AfD being opened, when all three participants (other than nominator) opined for a merge. These closes along with the habit of entering personal opinions to closing rationales shouldn't be done. I'd support a topic ban from closing AfDs for a duration of a few months at least. —SpacemanSpiff 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - But only because Erpert has made mistakes and seems to be unable to acknowledge the mistakes. I don't want a support of this ban to suggest that anything malicious has taken place. I'd prefer that Erpert just accept that the interpretation they had of SK was incorrect, especially since there was some ambiguity in the guideline that has only just now been fixed, and that they'll follow the guideline properly in the future. If so I'd expect a ban would be unnecessary, but since that hasn't happened I can only reluctantly support the ban. -- Atama頭 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that Erpert got the message which was all I wanted to see. I don't think a ban is necessary at this point. If Erpert doesn't show more caution in the future, or better judgement, then perhaps a ban will be necessary but I believe we should give them a chance. -- Atama頭 05:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow, I thought people were assuming good faith; I guess not (Fences&Windows, "weeks or months"? No offense, but you don't even sound sure). And where's the proof that I won't follow the guideline in the future? Have I speedily closed anything since this started? And I didn't say I didn't acknowledge the mistakes; now that WP:SK has been reworded, I understand better. And I've noticed that whenever I bring up valid points (this situation turning into a battleground; no length of time being set for WP:SNOW), no one pays attention and instead continue discussing this as though I didn't defend myself at all. Why is that?
  • Another thing, why is SpacemanSpiff bringing up speedy closures I performed that no one objected to? If you had an objection then, you should have said it then. It's like you were waiting for things to build up and then using it against me at just the right time (yeah, I know I was encouraged not to take it personally, but it's really hard not to at this point). Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Or, more likely, that most of the people in this discussion had never interacted with you and when faced with an accusation, they did their homework and looked up your past NACs. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no persecution against you, Erpert, we're only trying to judge your ability to close AfDs and Spiff looked into your past contributions and found other mistakes. He didn't have an objection then, because he was unaware of them at the time. This noticeboard report has brought your mistakes to light which is why we're reviewing them. But let me ask you, are you now acknowledging that your interpretation of SK was wrong? When you say, "I didn't say I didn't acknowledge the mistakes", that's simply false. We've quoted you doing exactly that. I've ignored your point about this being a "battleground" because nobody is trying to turn this into one, and you've repeatedlt asked others to assume good faith when you're not doing so yourself. I have to say, however, that if you're acknowledging the mistakes now, that's very helpful. We're only interested in preventing disruption, and inappropriate AfD closures are examples of disruption, even if the disruption isn't deliberate on your part. If the community is confident about your ability to close AfDs with a new understanding of the speedy keep criteria, then perhaps this ban isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As mentioned above by Protonk, I checked the NAC history before commenting here. Just because a problem wasn't identified before it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. The issue here isn't a case of AGF either, everyone makes mistakes, but you've refused to acknowledge them ("Now go away" as a standard response on your talk page) and pass it off as just opinions of other people. That is a clear no-no if you plan to do such tasks. —SpacemanSpiff 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support - It appears that Erpert had only good intentions, and after looking what he/she saw it would be easy to come to the same conclusion. I don't think that there were any maliscious intentions involved, and it was obviously going in the way of keep at the time. This may a good time to begin a discussion on whether there should be additional tools to allow non-admin veteran editors the ability to close AFD and Requested Moves. As it would seem that WP:AFD and WP:RM seem to always have long back logs. This way also, we can get rid of the whole NAC, and have non-admin users more accountable for their actions (Similar to Rollback rights).--Jojhutton (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment AFD rarely has serious backlogs these days; as I type this there are no outstanding debates from 3 August or before at all. There is very occasionally a bit of a backlog when there are a lot of "difficult" ones to close but these are the ones that non-admins shouldn't be touching anyway. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And largely the historical backup was a result of AfDs being really tedious to manually close. When Mr. Z-Man introduced the simple closing script it was like night and day. Protonk (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Atama, about my saying "I didn't say I didn't acknowledge the mistakes" being false, didn't you read the sentence that came directly after that? "Now that WP:SK has been reworded, I understand better." And as far as the assumption of me not assuming good faith, that can get a little clouded when an ANI report is brought up against me, don't you think? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • And Jojhutton, you wrote "weak support", but then it sounds like you're actually opposing the ban. Which is it? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe that Jojhutton changed the subject halfway through, addressing the potential of creating a new tool for non-admins to assist in non-admin closures, given to select individuals the way that Rollback and Autoreview are. Let's just say that you have acknowledged the mistakes now, you're glad that WP:SK is more specific now, and that you won't go outside of that guideline with speedy keeps now that you have a better understanding of it? Does that seem a fair summary? -- Atama頭 19:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I counted at least five sections on Erpert's talk page where user's noted that he has improperly closed AfDs. Clearly, this is a problem area for him, and he needs a long break from it. AniMate 19:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Before I was admin, I did quite a few NAC's ... some were contested. I'd like to think I was open-minded enough to have learned, and stopped accordingly - I must have, or else I would not be an admin now I suppose. If this editor is not even willing to stop, re-read, re-learn, and whatever it takes, then not only do I not want them closing AfD's, but they should also be aware that this kind of grievous error (and lack of desire to learn) has probably added at least a year (and a couple of dozen opposes) to their next/first WP:RFA - we can only WP:AGF so much before WP:COMPETENCE becomes an issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, making mistakes is acceptable (and expected with one's first steps into a new area), but refusing to acknowledge and learn from a consensus that they were a mistake is not. It's a shame that this is what it takes to get that point across, but judging from the comments made by Erpert here, I don't see it happening any other way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Bwilkins. The history of inappropriate NACs being raised with Erpert indicates that he or she is not responsive to the community's concerns. Responses here show a similar lack of responsiveness. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - going against the projects' consensus is not allowed and the user is unwilling to cooperate with users and respond to good faith community concerns. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Obviously a recurring problem; the fact that they haven't learned or acknowledged their mistakes earlier don't help. —fetch·comms 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support A recurring problem. Obviously doesn't understand deletion policy. When corrected individually, they continue to defend themselves, showing lack of ability to correct mistakes and understand policy. Even in the face of a strong consensus against them, they appear unwilling to respond to concerns, instead making accusations of bad faith assumptions against them. I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe these actions will stop. Swarm^Talk 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support- People have been asking Erpert to stop making bad NAC's for quite a while and his response has generally been to ignore them or tell them to go away. Editors who don't know what they're doing and won't heed advice are problematic. Reyk _YO! 02:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I was neutral, or leaning toward opposing, but after reading this exchange, I feel I must weigh in. Yes, the improper NACs are an issue, but the larger problem is Erpert's combativeness and refusing to listen to reason when mistakes are pointed out to him, even when called out by much more experienced users. Until he learns to listen to advice and gains a more collegial attitude, Erpert should not be closing AfDs, or doing any other "admin-lite" tasks for that matter. —DoRD (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I read the exchange that DoRD linked in his comment, and agree that it shows Erpert in a bad light. Anyone who closes AfDs, admin or not, needs to be aware of consensus and pay attention to feedback from others. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. See, the same thing is happening: I have acknowledged what happened, but people don't seem to see that. I guess I have to spell it out:
• 1) "Have I speedily closed anything since this started?"

No.

• 2) "I didn't say I didn't acknowledge the mistakes; now that WP:SK has been reworded, I understand better."

This is the third time I had to write this. You all are saying I'm not acknowledging the situation, but no one is acknowledging where I'm coming from. I'm being torn apart after clearly stating I do understand what went wrong here, which is totally unfair. In fact, after it was reworded and I said I understood, I simply asked if the discussion could be closed; instead, a topic ban thread was started. (By the way, Bwilkins, as I mentioned before, WP:RFA has absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 04:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Erpert, you've had multiple issues when it comes to closing AfDs. Most of the time we don't have to spell things out so specifically, and even when told what you were doing was incorrect you rule-lawyered over it and generally refused to hear what you were being told. Wikipedia is a big place. A few months from doing non-admin closures isn't that big of a deal, and I'm sure you can channel your energies elsewhere. AniMate 05:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But when WP:SK was changed, I said I understood. What don't you understand? To me, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT would only apply if I didn't defend myself at all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I changed my suggestion above, and now oppose a ban against you. I believe that you get what people are saying and won't close AfDs in the same way. But if you understand what went wrong, I hope you understand that there was cause for this whole discussion to begin in the first place. I don't think anything here is unfair, except for a couple of unfair comments against you (which you'll see were already objected to by others above). You're within your rights to request that the discussion be closed, but if the community wishes it to continue then it will. If it's a comfort at all, NACs aren't all that common anyway, I think I might have done a total of two ever, and SKs are pretty rare, so if you are in fact banned there are many other things you can do. It's not like people are banning you from the site, very far from it. -- Atama頭 05:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Let me explain a little further why I support a community ban, Erpert. It goes beyond the minor wording mixup at WP:SK. For example, you speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jorge Castillo (artist) because you didn't think the nominator understood "what warrants an afd", despite a valid nom rationale. When I left a note on your talk page, you cited #2, or "The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it". Or this speedy keep. When Paul Erik informed you that it didn't qualify for a speedy keep, instead of trying to clarify the issue at all, you're response was "I think it does. We should agree to disagree on this." Or the fact that you feel collapsing AfD discussions (a procedure widely frowned upon) is okay simply because it doesn't say not to. When advised not to do this, you reacted with stubbornness and very incorrectly cited WP:AGF. You showed inability to understand WP:Consensus also. Here, you received a message, "that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation", and your response was, "I understand that, but that's a suggestion, not a guideline." Consensus is central to Wikipedia, as it is central to AfD. And then we have this incident, where you essentially closed a discussion because the nomination wasn't notability-related. The speedy keep guideline isn't the only problem, it's the fact that you've shown you don't fully understand deletion policy in general, nor do you easily admit mistakes, cooperate with complaints, or accept consensus. I don't think you currently have the qualities needed for a non-admin closer. This topic doesn't appear to be "your thing". Swarm^Talk 07:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you mean topic ban, not community ban. A community ban is way over the line here. Still, I think Erpert's problems at AfD are strong enough that he needs to focus his efforts elsewhere. Again, you have acknowledged the problem, but there are just so many. AniMate 08:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I hope this can be a life lesson for Erpert. I can't tell you how many people I meet in life who are unable to admit their mistakes and take constructive criticism from others. These kinds of people rarely succeed in life. This sprawling ANI thread could have been a whole lot shorter if Erpert's first response to it was something along the lines of "You're right, I see now that closing that AfD early was not an appropriate application of WP:SK, and wasn't a good candidate for a NAC. Sorry, my mistake." If that was the first response, this discussion would have ended immediately. Instead, Erpert initially had to endlessly plead not guilty, tell people to AGF, and warn people about WP:BATTLE, despite a dozen editors and admins telling him he was wrong. He hung his argument on the word "include", as if that word means that you could make up your own reasons to speedy keep an article. Now that the word has been changed to "are", he is willing to admit his mistake. It appears there is a consensus for a topic ban, and hopefully the ban will teach you to admit your mistakes instead of wikilawyering to try and justify your actions. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, AniMate, I don't quite understand -- the community can impose a topic ban, which is what's being discussed right now (obviously). I didn't say full site ban I said community ban, which isn't incorrect. Swarm^Talk 20:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

* Oppose and close this nom This was a good faith close. I looked at the AFD as it stood when Erpert closed it and his closure reflected current consensus. Yes, I realize it wasn't in keeping with NAC because per WP:NAC a non admin close cannot be done in a speedy fashion. Yet, he reflected the consensus and didn't try to close as anything other than keep, suggesting that he knew how NAC worked. I saw it as an IAR close. I think the proposal to ban him from AFD is innapropriate. I further disagree with re-opening the AFD, we have DRV for that. Such a re-opening assumes bad faith on the part of the closer (yes, I saw on the NAC page that an Admin CAN re-open a NAC, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just my two cents. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 12:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The last thing non-admins should be doing is WP:IAR closes, frankly. Because this is what happens. Also, the problem isn't that NAC's can't be done as Speedy Keep (they can), it's that this wasn't a Speedy Keep. And what's the point in going to DRV and wasting everyone's time when the result of the DRV would clearly be that the AfD was improperly closed and therefore should be relisted anyway? Black Kite (t) (c) 12:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Such a re-opening assumes bad faith on the part of the closer". That's just not so. When I reverted two of Erpert's closes in the past, I assumed that the guidelines were misunderstood, not that Erpert was being deliberately disruptive. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • With respect, you really should have read more of the thread before leaving that comment. This one close isn't the reason for a proposed topic ban. If it was, I would absolutely agree with you, but if you look above you'll see that there are numerous recurring problems. Swarm^Talk 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support particularly since he's been rather insistent that there's no problem. It's a minor restriction "Don't close AFDs." Costs nothing and improves the editing environment.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm not a huge fan of non-admin closes in general, and it's painfully obvious that anyone who's proved not of sound judgement on NACs multiple times now should be asked to work elsewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• You know what? Forget it. I don't even care anymore. Hardly anyone is even trying to see my side here, and when a few editors do, people seem to continue this discussion as though no one spoke. I have said numerous times that I have acknowledged the problem; what more do you want? If NACs are that much of a problem, then no non-admins should perform them; not just me. If y'all don't think this is a battle, there must be a different definition of the word that I'm not familiar with. (By the way, SnottyWong is way too personally involved in this.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that SnottyWong is not uninvolved in this matter, and to be honest the "unfair remarks" I'd alluded to before were from them. As to the suggestion that this is becoming a battleground, that's part of the problem here. I don't see that anyone is personally attacking you. I can understand if the volume of criticism is overwhelming, and I sympathize, but the nature of the criticism is simply to express a dissatisfaction with your closure of AfDs (which you've acknowledged was problematic, much to your credit) but also your inability to accept criticism properly. This isn't personal, I don't believe that anyone here thinks that you've been malicious and nobody has said you're a bad editor. But you do have a history of either brushing off criticism or taking it too personally. In this very discussion you've done both, and though you're definitely not brushing it off anymore, you are interpreting these criticisms as personal attacks against you. Does anyone other than SnottyWong have a reason to have a grudge against you or do they have personal conflicts with you that they're carrying over? If so, it would be helpful to identify that, otherwise I don't think that your complaint that this is a battlefield is justified. In a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, it's important to be able to accept input from others, even if that input is negative. I do want to personally thank you, however, which I have not yet done. You chose to point out a flaw in our Speedy Keep guideline which led to an important change that should help avoid misunderstandings in the future. And you've also been relatively civil during this whole discussion (you haven't "gone off") despite the number of people criticizing you, which shows character on your part. -- Atama頭 17:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know you probably won't believe me Erpert, but trust me, I'm not way too personally involved in this. I honestly don't care which way the AfD goes or what happens to the article after that. From the very start you assumed that the reason I opposed your NAC was because I was upset that no one agreed with my AfD nomination, and it's clear that you continue to believe that. Perhaps it was my argument with Oakshade regarding the AfD which caused you to assume this (which is fair enough), but I assure you the only thing that upset me were Oakshade's blatant assumptions of bad faith. And, the only thing that prompts me to comment here and on your user talk page is a concern that there might be an abusive non-admin closer out there who is inappropriately speedy-keeping a lot of AfD's. So, in summary, I am not personally involved in this, regardless of what you or anyone else might think. Furthermore, I fail to see what is "unfair" about any of my remarks during this discussion. I have remained entirely civil and made no personal attacks. Erpert is upset because he wants to see an outpouring of support from everyone now that he's decided to make a belated admission of guilt, and he's not seeing that outpouring. Them's the breaks, kid. Wikipedia is unique in that everything you post is set in stone for all eternity for everyone to see, and this leads to people focusing more on the history of an issue rather than the immediate present development of it. You've done what you've done and said what you've said, and nothing can change that at this point. I'd suggest you stop complaining and take your lumps. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 22:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Also, even if I were too personally involved with this discussion, it wouldn't really matter since my participation in the matter has been extremely minimal. I didn't revert your close, I didn't start this AN thread, I didn't propose the topic ban. My involvement is limited to the 4 or 5 comments I've made on your talk page and this page, so if you're looking for someone to blame for your problems, it's not me. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 22:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• What I thought was unfair was labeling the early AfD closure as disruption. I just see it as a good-faith act done incorrectly. You say that now that there are delete !votes, which wouldn't have been there had the discussion stayed closed, that there is evidence of how disruptive the close was. But I don't think that's fair. Most AfDs run for 7 days and are closed if a consensus has emerged at that time, or if it seems like a consensus is unlikely to happen. I'm sure that there are unanimous AfDs that could have had different results if they'd stayed open longer than the week they ran, but you wouldn't call the admin closing those AfDs "disruptive" for following due process, would you? The fact is, you can always second-guess any discussion, and speculate on how they could have ended differently if only more people had joined in or if it had gone on longer, but it's not fair to hold the closer accountable if there's no indication that current consensus is going to change; we can't see the future. If you had meant that this helps demonstrate why closing the AfD early was wrong, I think everyone would agree, but your statement above (that others asked you to refactor) doesn't state that. Accusing an editor of disruption is pretty serious, and unfair when they make an honest mistake. Mistakes are common enough with deletions that we have WP:DRV to routinely handle them. -- Atama頭 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough. While I still maintain that the early close was disruptive, I didn't mean to imply (and have never thought) that it was purposely done with that intent. SnottyWong ^gab 15:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• ...although, no matter how much WP:AGF we hand over, and how well-intentioned, continuing to do the same thing even after being asked nicely many times not to quite probably does fall under disruption. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I commented way above when I figured this would peter out with little to no interest, but I think we should close the debate without action. This 'topic ban' has taken a life of its own. We should be comfortable trusting in the strength of unofficial censure/displeasure rather than willing to dish out formal 'punishment' (I know it isn't punishment per se, but bear with me). It is possible that Erpert can simultaneously understand that his actions have incurred tremendous feedback and deny that his actions were wrong in the first place. In fact, it isn't necessarily our job to ensure that Erpert learns that his/her actions were wrong in the first place, such a state of mind might not be possible to enforce. If s/he comes around and treats NACs w/ more caution, wunderbar. But if not, I think the general message sent has been clear. We don't need to follow it up with unnecessary aggravation. If backing away from the topic ban isn't an acceptable solution to supporters, then how about we treat it as a 'trigger'? No topic ban, but leave the decision of a topic ban up to admins based on future NACs. In general we need to give people the freedom to fuck things up and even to be stubborn about it, provided those two traits aren't disrupting the project (I don't think we could claim much disruption from the NACs s/he closed, even the improper or reversed ones). Not every job needs the hammer. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not petered out, a request was opened and users have commented and it clearly is supported, its been open a couple of dayys and should be closed and the user notified of the restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it hasn't petered out. I said I thought it would when I posted my comment. I was wrong. Protonk (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Off2riorob your opinion is very reasonable, Protonk, but we can't close this with no action. A topic ban is indeed clearly supported, and very justifiable. I don't feel we're being harsh, jumping on someone for making mistakes and simply being stubborn, the issue is beyond that. It's gone too far. This user has not shown me that they fully understand their mistakes and can effectively continue the work without further incident. Swarm^Talk 03:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Really honestly all he did was mess up some NACs and get his nose out of joint when people asked him about it. Sure there is an overwhelming majority in favor of restricting him, but I don't see the point. What's liable to happen is he gets pissed off for being restricted based on what he feels to be marginal harm and flares out or leaves. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Protonk, your comments (about how the "topic ban has taken a life of its own") hint to me that you think people are piling on for the sake of piling on, or that this proposal has turned into more of a a popularity contest (i.e. a discussion about whether everyone likes/dislikes Erpert, rather than about the topic ban itself). Don't assume that all of the !voters above haven't thought through what this topic ban means before they cast their !vote. There's a clear consensus above, and your comments appear to be an attempt to circumvent that consensus because you don't agree. If this were the first time Erpert did this, a topic ban would be a bit harsh. However, multiple admins have commented above about how they have had to revert multiple NAC's by Erpert, and linked to warnings he's already gotten on his talk page. This is clearly not working. Besides, the "punishment" is so minor anyway; NAC's are such a small part of WP. Surely Erpert can be constructive elsewhere. SnottyWong ^chat 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean only what I say. I'm sure everyone above thought through their comment (and in most cases I don't have to assume, they made explicitly clear their chain of reasoning and the evidence in support of it). The idea that a discussion can have path dependence is not exclusive with the idea that participants can have free will. We ought to be a little realistic and explore the possibility that calling for a topic ban might have pointed people down the path of either "opposing" or "supporting" without simply resolving the issue by gradiation. My larger point is that we clearly are not in a situation where a topic ban is the minimally intrusive tool in our kit to deal with the extant disruption. And if that is not the case, we ought to consider strongly whether or not use of a topic ban is the right choice despite the opinions and arguments made in favor. Sometimes opprobrium is response enough. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per above. The guy scares me in his ignorance of the rules and lack of respect for the admins. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• This has been open long enough , can we have closure please. Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2010 (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.

{{collapsetop|Clear consensus that the user should for the time being desist from closure of AFD discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)}}

As a supporter of the proposal, you can't be the one to close it. –xeno^talk 20:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)