Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive200

03:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• If the site is putting up malicious ads like the link says, then maybe it should go on the blacklist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think it can go on the blacklist in a meaningful way while on the m:Interwiki map unless we change the interwiki links to external links in places like template:Wikia and prohibit the use of non-templated internal links to Wikia. Kusma (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
    • What malicious advertising software are we talking about? Could we have an example or a link or some such? I don't see anything at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#wikia.com, and an editor there say the WikipediaReview report is overblown.   Will Beback  talk  06:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Look at the first entry in this link. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Let's conduct Wikipedia business on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  06:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
          • You wanted what advertising software I was talking about, I linked you to it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant the software on Wikia that is being discussed. It doesn't matter what harmful software is on Wikipedia Review.   Will Beback  talk  06:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Maybe I am not making myself clear either, the proposal link (from above) links to the discussion on Wikipedia Review where they talk about the ad software on Wikia. I am not going on Wikia and let my computer get blasted by whatever ad software they have. Go to Wikipedia Review (first posting) and you will see the ad software being discussed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                • If the only evidence of a problem exists on Wikipedia Review then this probably isn't a serious complaint.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • For what it's worth, I just spent a fair amount of time over on Wikia trying to reproduce any sort of malicious advertising like that mentioned in the WR discussion. While it has certainly reminded me why I normally use umpteen kinds of ad-blocking and tracker-blocking stuff, I didn't encounter anything that evil, even using Internet Explorer. While we shouldn't hold Wikia above all possible suspicion, I don't see any actual evidence that we should regard them as serving malware. It is worth noting that Greg Kohs' well-known business ventures place him in direct competition with Wikia; I don't say that to accuse him of anything, only to note that everyone has a certain partiality where their own self-interest is concerned, and that can affect one's judgement. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

These attacks on the veracity of what was exposed by User:Krimpet (her track record, if you care) are way out of line. She's owed an apology. -- Thekohser 12:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have to say, I agree with this. This is Krimpet - she has the technical know how, and isn't exactly a thicky. The forum maybe questionable for some but the person behind the posts deserves some respect. Viridae^Talk 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Has anyone been able to reproduce this? I don't doubt Krimpet, but this might have been an isolated case, or it might have been taken care of already. And, while we're at it, has anyone done the real world equivalent of asking the user on his talk page first? That is, has anyone asked people at Wikia about this? I would guess they won't be very happy about such ads on their site, either. --Conti|✉ 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I gave up trying to work "with" Wikia after I informed them that I was (and others were) offended by a Wikia wiki advocating depraved physical abuse of children ("spanking art"), and the response from its co-founder whined to me that I may not have "made a complaint through the proper channels". -- Thekohser 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have not seen anything posted in this thread which would warrant an apology to Krimpet, actually. I do notice that the person starting this thread and demanding now the apology is also responsible for off-wiki canvassing for support for his position: "Krimpet, there is a formal way to suggest that a domain has become too aggressive with adware, in which it becomes suitable for discussion regarding placement on the spam blacklist. I hope others will weigh in, in favor of a blacklist inclusion. Let's end this hypocritical nightmare that Jimbo has imposed on us." Wouldn't it be more logical to focus on the lack of a recurring problem, indicating that blacklisting may be an overreaction? Or does your last line suggest another agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with malware requiring blacklisting?
  Fram (talk
  ) 12:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Greg, you do a lot of good work on Wikipedia, and that is why you were welcomed back. The ArbCom decision overturning your community ban specifically addressed you engaging in battles in any form. One user reported you took a battle with him off Meta and on to here, and the defense was that user (who you had only just met) didn't act so great and look at all the good work you do. Will Beback reports this, but your history with him is the defense. Here, you are taking your anti-Wikia fight, that you continually hash out over on Meta with Angela Beesley and bring it to enwiki. We thought ArbCom's decision meant we'd get the Good Greg, which we all see in your edits, and lose the Endless Battles Greg. That's how the suspension was written. Whatever the merits of Krimpet's report, you are Wikia's greatest antagonist, particularly on Meta [1], and you shouldn't be bringing your anti-Wikia battle to enwiki. Your off-site canvassing certainly could have produced someone who is not under the directive to which you agreed. I'm sure many of your supporters on this site wonder why you make it so difficult for them. -->David Shankbone 13:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, an apology to Krimpet seems unwarranted. "This is Krimpet." doesn't excuse it from being a pretty poor report (not even a mention of which Wikia wiki this was) that is, as it stands, easily falsifiable. "Make the mistake of clicking a link to Wikia" says the report. I've just followed the link to Wikia wikia:Yellowikis:Special:Randompage ten times, in each of three different WWW browsers, both logged in and logged out (in case there was a difference), and seen nothing of what was described. The challenges to the veracity seem not only justified, but quite reasonable, given experimental results (I'm the second editor to have reported being unable to reproduce this.) entirely to the contrary. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• I randomly swing through a bunch of wikis and didn't see anything of this nature (IE7). I don't think there's anything here unless some more documentation is offered. I don't think a couple generic screen caps are enough to blacklist something RxS (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't reproduce the issue dispite pulling up a fair number of pages useing IE6 (incerdently IE6 can't even render the site very well). I did however see a lot of low end ads (penny stocks religions) and it's a known issue that the networks that serve them don't always catch the problematical ones before they go live. As a result it could have been limited to being a temporary problem.©Geni 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think that it's highly likely that the 3rd party serving the ads are at fault, not Wikia (whether it would be better to tell Wikia to make sure the 3rd party gets their house in order, or sever their relationship, is above my paygrade, but you can probably guess where I stand on this). I do have to say that an apology to Krimpet IS required here, they came in with a good faith concern that Wikia could be used to infect other people's computers, and instead of an honest look at the situation, the first inclination is to say "IT MUST NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE IT'S ON WR, O NOES". I really thought we had moved beyond that idiocy. SirFozzie (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? This little flareup seems to confirm that inclination. Also, there is a world of difference between the position "I think WR is bad and you use WR so I think you are bad" and "I think WR is bad so I'm gonna take whatever they say with a grain of salt...or two". Protonk (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Except for the fact, you know, that the report (while it didn't quite have enough information to fully act on), was you know, true. Krimpet's a former administrator here, and while they are no longer editing here (pretty much chased off the project), they deservew at least a mininum of respect. Something that you seem to lack here. SirFozzie (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh....[citation needed], as the kids say. The report was true if we say "I went to page XYZ and it had malware", not if we take it to mean "wikia has malware" or even "wikia's ad servers have malware on a wide scale". "Not having enough information to act on" is a phrase which avoids the truth--gathering of more information falsified the report. Again, no one here has disparaged Krimpet personally. I'm sure s/he is a nice person and was a good admin. All we have done (or me, specifically) is say that WR is not a good font of information about all things Wales-related. I'm sorry that you decided this was a good 'teaching moment' to give me a little lesson about respect. It's not. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In your haste to get in your bon mot, I think you missed seresin's post right below yours. that a good enough citation for you? SirFozzie (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If taken in isolation and ignoring the comments made here (by betacommand, uncle g, geni, etc.) and at the blacklist talk page, maybe. Given that the preponderance of comments and my own searching (admittedly not on IE) point toward minimal or no problems, no, it isn't. And You miss the point. I didn't say that the claim "I encountered malware" was false. I said the secondary claims "wikia has malware" or "there is a broad malware problem" were false and the vector (WR) conflated the three claims. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've had the same ad at least twice while browsing wikia. ÷seresin 19:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• This appears to be another situation of a webhost being infected with
  β^_command
  18:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps Wikia should be blacklisted until they fix the problem, then they can be taken off. By the way, this isn't the first time that Wikipedia Review has helped identify a threat to Wikipedia's well-being. Thanks to WR-participant Krimpet for bringing this to someone's attention. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • So you're just ignoring the fact that four people so far have been unable to independently confirm this claim? Uncle G (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Except they have. Did you read the thread? Viridae^Talk 11:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • You're currently asserting this in response to one of those four people. I know what my experimental results actually were, thanks, and so do the three others who have stated similar findings to mine. You don't get to re-state them for us. Please wipe the egg off your face, now. Uncle G (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Two people spin the roulette wheel a few times, and eventually they hit 00. You spin it a few times, it never lands on 00, and you conclude that therefore the other two people must be mistaken when they assert that 00 is on the roulette wheel? Badger Drink (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Don't construct questions based upon arguments of your own invention. Read what is actually written, above, instead. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
            • "You're currently asserting this in response to one two of those four people [the ones who got 00]. I know what my experimental results actually were [I did not get 00]. [Somehow this is supposed to 'counter' the fact that two people did get 00]". No, sorry, still seems like we've got a case of Uncle Gomer racing to act like a smug asshole despite xyr faulty understanding of how either
              yellow stuff smeared all over your face and hair while babbling about what messy eaters they are, I don't know what is. You may wish to consider adopting a more nuanced approach when chiming in on issues you don't quite understand. Badger Drink (talk
              ) 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I repeat: Don't construct questions and arguments based upon straw men of your own invention. Read what is actually written, above, instead. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Based on exactly what, Betacommand? Your supposition? I must say I find it difficult to believe that webservers are having their administrators install malware on their servers in such large volumes. And if wikia is the vector, frankly, it doesn't really matter whether it is wikia, or an ad server. If an XSS vulnerability existed that allowed WP to be exploited, would you be arguing that it wasn't anything to worry about on WP, since the XSS vulnerability itself was tied to another site? Achromatic (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • based on the fact that I have seen this exact same behavior many times [2] [3] and many other examples that I have accumulated over the years working with computers and virus/malware outbreaks. MySpace, AOL and many others have been subject to similar breaches. the servers have been compromised by outside hackers who installed the malware. before commenting on complex topics its always best to do a little research first. ♠
    β^_command
    08:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would guess you don't really understand how such malware gets installed. No sysadmin of a legitimate company (which both Wikia and the company that hosts its ads are) is likely to deliberately install malware that generates such ads. Stuff like this gets added by people exploiting vulnerabilties in the security of their network. Wikia doesn't seem to host their own ads - or not all of them, at least - and since the problem is apparently coming from bad ads, I'd agree with Betacommand's assessment, and be more inclined to question whether doubleclick.net, as one example, has done enough to ensure the safety of its network. As noted on the forum link posted below, Wikia is trying to identify where the bad ad is coming from so they can put a stop to it. If they can't though, they probably should begin disabling all ads until the hosts get their own house in order. Also, as an aside, reading that report on WR, I would hardly agree that Krimpet deserves an apology. That read like a person with a major league chip on their shoulder and a serious hate-on for Wikipedia/Wikia jumping to massive conclusions. Frankly, the fact that they simply assumed that such an ad - which can only possibly damage Wikia's business - was deliberately placed by Wikia rendered the report completely worthless in my view. Thekosher's endorsement of Krimpet hardly helps. Resolute 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Report on one of the Wikia.com forums indicate that the "bad ad" is being served on multiple Wikia wikis. [4]. So it's not on every ad being served, but the most recent report is yesterday (edit: No, if you look down, it's being served today, the 28th), so it IS still being served. SirFozzie (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK admins, please get Wikia on the blacklist now, before someone's computer gets hurt. Cla68 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure it can go on the blacklist - we can blacklist external links, but not interwikis, surely?

talk

| 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least we should be contacting the Foundation and/or Jimbo, and telling them to either pull the ads on the Wikia side, or get the ad providers arse in gear to remove the virus-ads? SirFozzie (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fozz, why would we contact "the Foundation" about a problem festering on Wikia, Inc. servers? I was told that the two entities are "completely separate". (Other than that nagging fact that Wikia is the Wikimedia Foundation's landlord for additional office space.) -- Thekohser 02:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Human decency.--Tznkai (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Contacting Wikimedia would be useless; we can't do anything about it. Contact Wikia; reporting link for bad ads is here. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 02:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you ban the site until it gets its house in order? Cla68 (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If anybody from Wikia is watching, you might want to read An Open Letter to Online Ad Networks This problem is big, and getting worse. I agree that Wikipedia should not link to any page distributing malware. Google automatically delists such pages. We should too. Jehochman ^Talk 04:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we delist such pages? Wikipedia has hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of links to Wikia wikis. It would take weeks to find and remove all those links, by which time Wikia will have fixed the problem. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing debate at Template:Wikia to add "NOFOLLOW" to outbound links to wikia. The consensus so far is that we should add NOFOLLOW to those links, but {{Wikia}} isn't the right place to do it. We would appreciate some technical know-how there as to the best solution. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have a working NOFOLLOW version for the links made via {{

Memoryalpha}}) over the next days. Kusma (talk

) 07:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A few things

1. We can talk about 'human decency' and what-not all day, but the practical facts are: we here in this thread have no real influence over the WMF. The WMF has no real influence over wikia. If you want to talk to the members of the WMF board or Jimbo who run Wikia about this, be my guest.
2. Adding wikia to the spam blacklist doesn't block outgoing links to wikia. It just stops people from adding new links. We would be closing the proverbial barn door after the horse has left.

Am I in the right about these two points? If so, is this discussion a reasonable course of action for us? Protonk (talk) 07:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The first hits the nail on the head, Protonk. Wikia & Mediawiki are two separate organizations -- although they share personnel, & in the past one has helped the other. The Foundation can make all sorts of threats at Wikia, but if the people over there don't want to do something, what is said or how it said won't matter. As for the second, IIRC from the last time I've had to handle pre-existing blacklisted URLs (that was a couple of years ago) what happens is when you try to edit a page with one of those, you can't save the change until the blacklisted external link is disabled. And if the URL is only a bad link for a short while -- which I assume would be the case with Wikia -- it would be more of a headache to blacklist them than a solution. But I don't know what else we could do to nudge a site to fixing a problem. -- llywrch (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing a page with existing blacklisted links was fixed in r34769, dated May 13 2008. See also bug 1505. Anomie⚔ 11:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure I should apologize for not being interested in reading the bug database, or explain that I'm not in the habit of editting pages with existing blacklisted links. But belated thanks for the update. -- llywrch (talk)

The bad ad has been detected and removed. Wikia's response can be found in this forum post. Angela. 07:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an admin unprotect Brandon Hall so I can create an article about the Brandon Hall building listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Adams County, Mississippi. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan | 39

21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just do it instead of wasting the keystrokes to tell me where else to go... I brought it here for what I thought was an obvious reason, that being that apparently a non-existent article was protected for some reason and more admin eyes may shed light on why this may not be a good idea. - ALLST✰R▼echo _{wuz here} 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a terrible idea to point you out to the very specific, very obvious forum for situations exactly like this one. My mistake.

Tan | 39

21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. - ALLST✰R▼echo _{wuz here} 21:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Er, no. Unless there's a reason you're special enough to skip normal processes? --Calton | Talk 00:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever; unprotected. It only /looks/ like a wheelwar. If it is, please trout me. Next time: RFUP

) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops...reprotected. Saw the request filed at RFUP. That was confusing ^^;;

Xavexgoem (talk

) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion there. I went on and filed the request at RFUP but they took so long to do it, I had already created the article at Brandon Hall (Washington, Mississippi). Once RFUP unprotected Brandon Hall, I just redirected it. Someone else came along and re-protected it. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sambokim (talk · contribs) I brought this up before. He was reminded yet again not to cut and paste from websites onto wikipedia, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_etc. But he is once again copy and pasting from websites into articles. [5] and here is the original [6]. His job for the team is promotion and he cannot seem to grasp that wikipedia is not to be used for promotion. Half of his edits seem to be cutting and pasting various press releases into articles. In my initial clean-up of anyang halla I had to revert his copyvios numerous times as he was continually inserting them over and over. He's been warned numerous times and last time another editor warned him as well. He doesn't respond and just continues to promote it. So I'm recommending a ban from the following articles:

• Anyang Halla
• Asia League Ice Hockey
• Samuel H. Kim
• All players and staff who may currently be with the team or were with the team in the past.
• Any articles which may in the future be created which are related to these topics.

This has gone on for a very long time and he's shown no interest in following the policies.--

) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

And he is once again trying to insert the same promotional links as sources that he's been told numerous times don't belong there [7].--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question and comment Do you have any evidence that he has COI with the listed team and people? And if it is a matter of COI, you need to try COI board first. If you can prove that he is truly hired by the team, the next step would be
  WP:OTRS You can persuade him to get an official permission from the team instead of the premature ban proposal. Since topic ban by the community should be almost a last resort, I don't think the person in question reach the last straw yet. So I'm basically opposing the ban proposal.--Caspian blue
  01:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Even with permission from the team, we don't copy and paste press releases into articles. That isn't good writing. As far as the COI, the user name and the fact that he only edits Anyang halla related articles to promote Anyang halla is sufficient given that one of Samual H Kim's jobs is english language promotion for the team per

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 01:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  In addition, as I mentioned before I've exchanged e-mails with him through the anyang halla website. He responds with an email which uses the username "sambokim". There is little reasonable doubt that the user and team promoter are the same person. Any administrator that would want a forward of that email which shows the username connection is free to let me know and I'll send it to them.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just for your information, there has some similar precedents but well that could be only useful tip for the user in question if he wants to get out of the copyvio accusation. For example, Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company [8]. As for the bad writing part, well that would be a content issue if he indeed obtains the permission from the team and writer.--Caspian blue 01:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• And read the talk. There is an admin there saying it needs to be cleaned up. Just because there can be permission to copy and paste content from websites doesn't mean that the content should actually be used in the article as such. It is clearly promotional as pointed out. But that is immaterial as we don't have any permission here. What we have is a user who continually violates policy on a narrow set of topics which he is related to and fails to communicate with other wikipedia users after numerous warnings.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 01:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sambokim has been blocked 24 hours for creating copyright violations, since he continued to add the offending material after being warned, and did not respond to the complaints at either AN or ANI. This user has never left an edit summary or commented on a Talk page. I have no opinion on a topic ban. If he never participates on talk, it may be hard to explain to him what a topic ban is. If somebody has been emailing him, perhaps they could find out whether he understands our policy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've only exchanged a single set of emails with him and there was a serious communication problem. I asked him about getting the Halla archives restored as prior to 2008 there is a lot of 404, but I never received any further replies from him. I don't know if a 24 hour block will phase him. He doesn't edit daily so he might not even notice.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 03:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK

policy at odds with adminbots and allowing abuse filters to block users

{{resolved|MZMcBride's analysis of the situation is accurate. AntiAbuseBot and ProcseeBot enjoy community consensus,1, 2 the relevant policy pages should be updated to reflect the same. AF discussion is being held at another venue. –xenotalk 17:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)}}

A proposal has been made to allow abuse filters to block users. Aside from the obvious concerns about false positives in abuse filters causing issues, as they have in the past and undoubtedly will do in the future, this is contrary to the existing

policy which begins by stating "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia". Although it may be argued that bots or filters with administrator rights are administrators, I do not believe that this was the intention when the policy was written.

It has come to my attention that there are at least two approved adminbots,

with very little discussion. The rationale for the bot was the anontalk spammers and similar, issues which are now somewhat mitigated by the abuse filters.

(although a later blocking admin also failed to leave a notification when they blocked the IP for "repeatedly and deliberately triggering the abuse filter").

I believe that the cart has been put ahead of the horse by approving adminbots with little public discussion and that the cart is now dragging that horse at high speed with the proposal to allow the abuse filter to block users. I suggest that AntiAbuseBot needs to have its admin bot removed immediately (per the approval provisos) and that ProcseeBot should be stopped until either a full community discussion of unsupervised automatic blocks has been concluded, or until

) 15:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Have there been any controversial blocks made by these adminbots, other than the one you liked to above? Pardon me if I'm missing an obvious, previous discussion.

Tan | 39

15:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that that was not a bad or controversial block. The IP was quite clearly vandalizing. Mr.Z-man 16:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy is written and continually updated to serve the project. If it states "by administrators" and a discussion elsewhere considers that administrators using abusefilter is also apppropriate at some times, then it would be blocking policy that may need to change to reflect that view. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I suggested revising

WP:BLOCK as one of the options. I'm interested in seeing a discussion of the issue (blocking by unsupervised automated processes) prior to any update. The policy should reflect the desire of the community, rather than current practice by a limited number of admins. Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tan, I don't think the diff I linked is an example of a controversial block, simply of one that does not follow policy. I assume it is typical. My reason for bringing up this issue is not to criticize the actions of these adminbots, simply to point out that there is a discrepancy between policy and practice which may be further extended by allowing abuse filters to block users. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any general community agreement to extend administrator privileges to non-humans. My feeling is that only humans should be able to block users, but I am not fixed in that belief, and I do not wish to presume the outcome of a community discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

At least up to a point (AI?), bots run by admins can be considered mere tools for the job. The real question I think is do we trust the tools to work, and is it worth the cost (false positives, plus design/maintenance). Even planes crash (very rarely), and people still fly - and blocks can be undone. Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think this needs to be a fairly wide discussion by all users, not just admins. Can we agree on the basics - that

WP:BLOCK and current practice are divergent, that a community-wide discussion about blocking by automated processes is needed, and that adminbots need to be stopped until the discussion has taken place? Delicious carbuncle (talk

) 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Off-hand, it would appear this thread is purely about semantics. That is, it's about the specific wording used in a particular policy page. If so, I'd urge all involved to remember that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. And that the pages have an edit tab for a reason. If the inclusion of adminbots doesn't seem to fall within the current wording used, the policy talk page is the appropriate forum. I don't see any particularly pressing issues to address, though. Am I missing anything? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't policy be descriptive of the desire of the community, rather than the very small group of admins who participated in the bot approval discussions (to "approve" bots which were already running and blocking users)? At the very least, before this thread gets closed, AntiAbuseBot should have its admin bit removed as per the bot approval. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? Those two bots have been running for six months; ProcseeBot has around 52,000 blocks in that time. What is the pressing issue to disable them? Kuru ^talk 18:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

AntiAbuseBot was approved conditionally and temporarily. Since the abuse filters have been implemented, the bot is presumably no longer required. Read the approval discussion - I don't think it would have been approved if the abuse filters implementation was not imminent. With any piece of running software, there is a chance of malfunction. Why leave a bot with admin rights running if it is no longer needed, regardless of its history? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be mistaken about the abuse filter. It was not designed as the be-all, end-all, solution to vandalism. In fact, filters that can be easily managed by a bot are encouraged to be disabled to reduce the overall load of the AF. –xeno^talk 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. This is an anti-adminbots rant? Gotcha. I'll pass. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. If the community wants adminbots they will have adminbots, but I don't think anyone asked the community what they wanted. Would you not agree that if there are adminbots they should follow the blocking policy? I've provided a diff to show where a bot failed to notify a user that they were blocked. I'm not sure why you feel that the conditions set forth in AntiAbuseBot's approval should be ignored, regardless of how you assume I feel about admin bots. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Was the block incorrect? Administrators do not always notify users that they are blocked. Sometimes, I'll go completely rogue and block a user, no talk page or email privileges. I won't leave a block notice. Was I wrong? Of course not, the user had just moved five pages abusively. They knew what they were doing, and don't need notification that they can't anymore.

I am have my reservations about adminbots; in fact if memory serves me right, I was the one who suggested AAB automatically place unblock templates for human review. Show me something the bot did wrong. –xeno^talk 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See the diff already provided. No block notice or unblock template were left for the user. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to see something the bot did wrong. That seems like a perfectly appropriate block. –xeno^talk 19:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Operators of adminbots are required to widely distribute word of their BRFA. Community objections are invited. Next time you unresolve your own thread, please use "{{

tlx}}", "nowiki" or some other manner of keeping the closing administrators' comments on the page. As you already stated yourself, adminbots are technically administrators (c.f. [9], [10]), so the policy remains accurate. –xeno^talk

18:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a discussion to make more clear the extent that automation is allowed for blocking, but proposing a bot that provides an important service with no actual problems, besides it not being consistent with one interpretation of the specific wording of a policy, be shut down until that's done is just policy wonkery. The somewhat non-descriptive block summaries of AntiAbuseBot are arguably an issue, but suggesting it be desysopped and shut down without even asking the operator to change the summary (which would likely be a trivial change) is not helpful. Mr.Z-man 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK calles for notifications to be left on the user's talk page, not in the edit summary (See this section) but that's not why I'm calling for the desysopping. Here, in full, is the approval statement for AntiAbuseBot: "Approved. until such time as the AbuseFilter extension or a substantially indentical technical feature is turned on by the sysadmins at the English Wikipedia. At such a time, a report should be made to the bot owners' noticeboard requesting that Chris G either to turn off the bot or seek re-approval in a Wikipedia:BRFA". I'm not picking on AntiABuseBot, but I don't see the need for it anymore, given that abuse filters now exist. My fundamental point here is that there needs to be a wider discussion of automated blocking. Please understand that I don't think the existing practice represents the wishes of the community, although I may be completely wrong about that. Simply rewording WP:BLOCK won't change that. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Until blocking abuse filters are implemented, AntiAbuseBot is needed. And even afterwards, the code that Chris G can write with his bot is far superior to what features and functions are available with the abuse filter. If you think that adminbots are a bad thing, try cleaning up after vandals like Grawp without them. When you do that for a few weeks, then start complaining. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologise if my suggestion that more community input is required comes across as a complaint. I have not at any point said that I think adminbots are a bad thing. Taking a look through AntiAbuseBot's blocking log for today, it looks like simply semi-protecting NawlinWiki's archives would have prevented the need for any action by the bot. And even failing that, ClueBot would have handled it. I'm not trying to argue with you about the utility of the bot, it is simply an observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is, I remember there being a very long and detailed community discussion about adminbots. There is no need to have "further community input"; the community has already given their opinion on the matter. The consensus was that adminbots would be allowed. If you have a problem with adminbots, start an RFC outlining why they should not be allowed. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

) 18:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. There seems to be quite a range of opinions. Note that I am solely raising concerns to do with automated blocking, not with other routine activities carried out by adminbots or filters. I agree with your comment about more discussion for filter actions, however. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reboot

I'm having trouble understanding the hostile reaction to a proposal which in essence says "let's ask regular editors if they want automated processes to block users". I should not have included the information about specific adminbots, since it seems to have drawn all of the focus. If future commenters could place any adminbot-related comments above this section it may help to maintain focus on the basic question in this new section. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We already did all this, very calmly, and slowly, when we finally (as a community) allowed adminbots to come out into the open. Before, they were run as open secrets (many still are). If you want to initiate an RFC, by all means, but we're not going to turn the switches off because one user didn't notice the process. AntiAbuseBot's approval had much community input. If you want AntiAbuseBot to undergo a re-certification

BRFA because the abuse filter hasn't solved all our problems yet, drop a note on his operators' talk page. –xeno^talk

19:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (Which I've done)

Because that's not your entire proposal. The other half of your proposal is to shut down 2 bots providing valuable services despite them having no significant issues (one of them having no issues at all). Mr.Z-man 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems to be such a distraction, I have struck out those comments. Any thoughts on the rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Carbuncle, I appreciate (and in some cases, share) your apprehension for adminbots. However, these two adminbots are doing an admirable job. I simply don't see that the "community" is objecting to their operation. Comments as to their operation was invited before they were approved. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Current adminbot BRFAs, for example. –xeno^talk 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have any problem with adminbots. What I like about (even semi-secret) adminbots is that typically, they have one operator who is responsible for the bot. I can go to the bot owner and complain, or go and block the bot if it seems to be malfunctioning. If the block ability is encoded deeper in the software, it becomes a bit harder for Joe Non-Coding Admin (like me) to deal with problems that show up (and problems will (rarely) show up). So I am not too happy about a blocking function in the abuse filters. I would prefer external bots that check the filters and block, and that can be stopped without extra technical knowledge. Kusma (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Actions by edit filters are stilled "owned" in some sense by those that create/maintain them. Even admins who have chosen not to grant themselves the EFM flag can view private filters. It's not difficult to look at the history of the filter to see who wrote it. Perhaps the block log should contain a note about who wrote the filter or who set it to block, so there is a way for even those without access to private filters to know who to trout-slap in case of an error. Nevertheless, we really ought be discussing this at the VPR thread, I'm not sure why D.B. felt the need to launch a side discussion. –xeno^talk 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  The discussion on VPR assumes that the community is generally ok with automatic processes blocking users. I don't see any evidence of that except for the RFC which shows a wide range of opinions and does not specifically focus on the blocking. I can see that there is support for automated blocking coming from the admins who are participants in bots and abuse filters, but this should not be assumed to represent the desire of the community at large. I think that asking the community what they want is an obvious and sensible course of action before enabling abuse filters to block users. I had hoped that some admins could take this forward in an appropriate manner, but my suggestion has been met with hostility, defensiveness, misperception, and nit-picking of the workings of specific adminbots. It would be nice if this thread remained open for another day in case some of the more far-seeing admins might happen upon it, but I won't object to it being closed. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Prodego's thread ends with the question "What are people's thoughts on enabling the ability to create blocking abuse filters?". If the 'community at large' is against this, why haven't they shown up (here, or there)? Perhaps you should draft an RFC if you feel the community hasn't been appropriately involved in this process (even though they have been). –xeno^talk 15:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  The people who hang out here (mostly admins) and at VPR (often admins) are not representative of most editors on Wikipedia. I don't think most editors have any inkling that they might get blocked by a poorly-coded regex string or ill thought-out assumption that the phrase "anontalk" could never legitiamtely appear in an article. I don't know if they have an opinion on the matter, but it seems important enough, to me, to ask them. The first RFC does not seem to have any clear consensus to allow automated blocks, but I see little point in starting another one given the feedback here. If someone else wants to do so, I'm happy to assist and participate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  The thread on VPR is a proposal to the community, not an announcement. If Prodego was working under the assumption that people already supported it, he wouldn't have made it a proposal. I don't see where it assumes that people support anything. People don't need to broadly support automated blocking to support one specific implementation, and vice versa. And I would hardly call disagreeing with the proposal to shut down 2 active bots despite no real problems with them "nit-picking" (if anything, proposing they be shut down due to a technicality with one interpretation of the blocking policy is nit-picking). Mr.Z-man 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I don't agree, I'd rather not argue about this. I struck my comments about adminbots based on earlier comments - why are you still beating that horse? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Because you continued to deride the people who disagreed with you on that matter. Just because people strongly disagree with you does not make them hostile. Mr.Z-man 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to deride anyone and I don't think I did. I didn't call anyone names, use insulting language, question their intelligence, suggest that I knew better, etc. I simply pointed out the conditions of approval which appeared to be no longer in effect (although J Delanoy's response makes that unclear), and where the actions of the bot did not follow the blocking policy (i.e., notifying the user of blocks). You are welcome to argue with me on my own talk page, but I don't think it's adding anything useful here. The comments have already been struck. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, discussion prior to activating Anti-Abuse Bot was extensive, public participation was invited, and the bot has been running for quite some time with no serious errors or complaints that I'm aware of. AAB leaves an unblock request on the talk page of every editor it blocks; having reviewed a large number of those blocks, I don't recall ever having seen a false positive. ProcseeBot was a more recent development, but is even less prone to error, as my understanding is that it directly confirms the ability to edit Wikipedia through any open proxy before blocking it. This is probably a silly question -- this noticeboard being what it is -- but what actual problem exists, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bots do not have the authority to block users and if they are given this authority right now, it should be removed for the reasons cited above. For such a long time, the bot owners have formed a very disturbing mob of authority on Wikipedia, in which a small group of users are given undue authority, without oversight or transparency, merely because they are skilled bot programmers. It is unreasonable for one editor to have more authority simply because he is a bot programmer and these bots cause enough trouble and garbage as it is. Giving bots blocking authority is like handing a shotgun to a monkey. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are sorely mistaken on the first point: a small number of blocking bots have been approved after extensive discussion on the matter -- see, among others,

WP:ADMINBOT, the rather immense RfC linked above, a plethora of past noticeboard discussions, and bot approval discussions for any relevant bot. I'm frankly confused by your saying bot operations are done "without oversight or transparency", given the rather extreme lengths such users go to in order to maintain both transparency and oversight. This isn't a matter of "giving" bots the ability to block; they've already had it for some time. – Luna Santin (talk

) 03:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to continue this discussion about the specifics of individual adminbots, but perhaps it will help to plant the seed in someone's mind that adminbots should follow the blocking policy about leaving notifications and that should be part of the approval process. Here is a diff showing AntiAbuseBot blocking a user without leaving a notification or unblock template. Here is another. Procseebot does not appear to have ever left a notification. Yes, the bots could be fixed. Yes, WP:BLOCK could be rewritten. Yes, the policy could continue to be ignored. No, no one is likely to die from any of this. Can we get off the adminbot track now please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but I've left a note with Chris about those two examples you named -- that's news to me, I'm afraid. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(If this is the wrong place, please move to the correct place)
Just noticed the Filter Log for IP's - I think this is a rather silly idea, as it assumes

) 14:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive." –xeno^talk 15:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Even that is still much too strong and unfriendly. DGG (talk) 17:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

How about "Entries in this list may be constructive or made in good faith and are not necessarily an indication of wrongdoing on behalf of the user." ? Tweak as desired: MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-summary. –xeno^talk 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The filter log is not "for IPs" -- you can search by any username. Removing the filters and their respective logs will do far more harm than good; rephrasing system messages and so on is more likely to be productive. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An unregistered user often signing done on many of his contributions (he is often using

) 08:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think

WP:Wikiquette alerts might have been a better, less heated way to handle this.. --Cybercobra (talk

) 09:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I consider

WP:OUTING a serious offense. The outing attempt is the only reason I put it here. I talked about his general behavior to provide context for what he did. Sorry if it appeared like I asked the block for his previous POV behavior. Hervegirod (talk

) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, he's continuing to be (*insult not written*) and unconstructive. I withdraw my previous statement and endorse the proposed actions. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Although he has not attempted outing anymore, he continues to put his own views without sources or with unrelated sources on the same article. Hervegirod (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. There's currently a major backlog of around 400 pages which have been marked for speedy deletion. It's gonna take some shifting, so the more hands we can get on board here, the better. Cheers,

(bring on the trumpets!)

08:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A high proportion (if not almost all) of those deletion nominations appear to have been made by Ryulong (talk · contribs) and are for redirects. I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with that (I just deleted a few of them per their nomination and kept a few others where the redirect seemed reasonable), but nominating so many articles in such a short time is a bit unusual. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See

) 08:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'd suggest that you stop leaving rude message's on this editor's talk page like this though. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Although crude, it is a fair enough question in my opinion.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not what one would associate with the word 'backlog'. Usually that's when something backs up over time from negligence, whereas this is more like stemming a flood. I have illustrated my arguments on ANI and with my conversations with Ryu. It certainly is unusual, as Nick says, and I would argue: unfounded. I am glad someone else sees the problem with the bullying. This only demonstrates that this is an attitude issue and that understanding and working out the issue does not seem to be the intent (this is the vibe I get when messages I leave are simply deleted and ignored. Basically, I need to follow this issue where it is dragged to voice my side of it: these are being mistagged. So I request: please cease the pump! The use of redirects may not be glaringly obvious until people search in some cases, I only want a chance to point out why I think it is useful. As for the fairness of the question: I did answer it, and you simply disregarded the answer (and it did not need to be asked with cursing). I still give the examples of your work:

Takeshi Asakura, examples of likely dozens more perfectly good redirects batted out of left field. Tyciol (talk

) 10:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:PUF

- over two weeks of uncommented nominations

Everything I needed to say can be found in the section title. Cheers, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 14:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As someone who often has to deal with

talk

) 16:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The place to request it is

WT:EF, by all means, please do so :) -- Avi (talk

) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me exactly what happened here?

) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure looks like a major BLP violation against several people, to me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know the gist of it all, but through User talk:Penright#Comments and formatting, I think I have gotten this user to recognize how to to interact with others in a properly formatted manner. So perhaps the TL;DR will become a bit less so as it unfolds. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not dealing with the article (it makes my brain hurt), but I've left Penright a note about assuming good faith and not making personal attacks. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should look at the images on the nominated page, either the licensing is incorrect and they should probably be deleted or there's a

conflict of interest. Guest9999 (talk

) 23:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the

WP:3RR

rule

Since

) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reports of

WP:AN/3. —Mythdon (talk • contribs

) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate

closers needed, adminship not required

There are currently 18 candidates due for closure at featured picture candidates. Consensus determiners are welcome. Durova²⁸⁸ 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

8 noms closed. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Move to close. Thank you, Sswonk (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Per motions of the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, the administrative permissions of Aitias (talk · contribs · former admin: blocks · protections · deletions · rights · meta · local rights) are removed for disruptive and inappropriate conduct including conduct involving his administrative duties. (Please note that Aitias resigned his tools under a cloud after these motions were passed but prior to their enactment, however this motion and the subsequent note were explicitly requested by the Committee to still be enacted and published.)

Aitias may seek to regain adminship via

, should he rename.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

The Arbitration Committee has amended Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong to include the following terms:

Pursuant to the latest developments related to the recent Arbitration case involving Mythdon and Ryulong and discussions on the Arbitration Committee mailing list, the Arbitration Committee has noted that there has been no changes in the behavior of Mythdon since the closure of the Arbitration case:

a) the user has made no effort whatsoever to find a mentor;

b) the user has made no effort whatsoever to engage himself in serious discussions to produce a guideline for the articles falling under the scope of the Tokusatsu WikiProject as directed by this remedy;

c) the user has targetted another Wikipedia area to impose his stance on verifiability disregarding the ArbCom's view concerning his stance on the matter;

d) He recently threatened to mass AfD articles which do not satisfy his standards in terms of

verifiability

;

Therefore, the Committee has decided to extend the restrictions imposed in order to facilitate more collaboration in the field of conflict and to ensure the smooth running of the project in general and protect other areas in particular. The terms are as follows:

a) Mythdon is prohibited from partcipating at any

Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion discussion which involves verifiability and reliable sources. That includes —and is not limited to— the WikiProject Tokusatsu

. The restriction is indefinite pending the production of a guideline. Mythdon —as well as everyone else— should respect the terms of the guideline once it is produced;

b) Mythdon is reminded of the importance of participating in a good faith effort to help produce a genuine guideline for the cited WikiProject, including but not limited to verifiability. He is again urged to start working on this guideline;

b) Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies, or at the Tokusatsu WikiProject talk pages;

d) all other restrictions imposed during the arbitration case involving him remain in place;

e) in the light of Mythdon's resignation from the WikiProject, the ArbCom notes that any similar behavior which had led to this situation would be dealt with similarly. Therefore and as a preventive measure, restrictions apply to all WikiProjects;

e) should Mythdon violate the above restrictions, any administrator may block him for a period up to two weeks per incident, escalating to one year per incident after the fifth one. Any discussion about possible violations should be held at

requests for arbitration enforcement

;

f) any further request on this matter should go through

requests for arbitration enforcement

beforehand. Administrators there are able to help answer any question.

These terms have been appended to the Ryulong case page at "New remedies and enforcement added by motion".

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Discuss this

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

19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My mistake. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think that belonged here per my previous comments on this. –xeno^talk 19:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As a result of this complaint at WP:AN3, I have placed a 1RR restriction at

) 01:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Ed's solution (1RR on Volhynia) is a good one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

When my time permits, I'm planning to place a 1RR on Ukrainian Insurgent Army as well, per a user suggestion. That article also seems to involve Ukrainian-Polish conflicts in Volhynia during the mid-1940s. Please let me know if anyone objects. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the best solution and I support it. Tymek (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Against it. Why? There are twice as many Polish editors as Ukrainian working on the page.--Львівське (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've placed an HTML comment on

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

:

<!-- WARNING: You are allowed to make only ONE (1) revert every 24 hours. Violators of this rule may be blocked. Please see [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Poeticbent reported by user:Faustian (Result: 1RR on the article)]] for more information. -->

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this even enforceable? In spite of KoH's thoughtful addition of the warning to the HTML, it is still not visible to people editing by section and would be easily missed even by someone editing the article as a whole. Shereth 21:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see

) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if you can't decide on whether or not an article meets speedy criteria, it is usually safer to say that it does not and refer it to AfD. The tone is fairly spammy, but I also notice that it has been around for a couple of years and some attempts have been made to improve it in the interim. The old saying at AfD is "When in doubt, don't delete", and the same really should apply to CSD. Shereth 19:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

AfD started

Tan | 39

19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Premature AfD closers

In regards to this AfD. It was first closed prematurely a few days ago. Now it was closed 14 hours before it was supposed to, a 14 hour period added because the previous early closure which disrupted people's ability to respond.

The admin there closed it as no consensus, even though only 43% of those responding voted Keep, with one of them being a simple !vote and 2 being the editors of the page, which means an actual keep percentage being quote lower. Please see here for the mathematics.

However, the main complaint is this and this. One is a statement from hours ago which states that they already predetermined that it would be no consensus, even though there are more and more deletes with the only keeps coming in on things that were already debunked.

It also shows that the user closed the AfD with an admitted bias and predisposition. The worse of it is this statement: "I'm gonna' enjoy watching the drahmahz". I do not feel confident that the user is using tools in a way that can be trusted by the community and they have closed in an inappropriate manner that violates CoI. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The morons have more guns than you do Ottava, let it go. --

Fatuorum

01:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly want to know what Jimbo, Godwin, and the rest of the WMF feel about this issue and the manner people are treating this whole situation. This is a page that serves as nothing more than a mouth piece to allegations against one of our users. To be bluntly honest, I would want everyone connected to writing that page and in support of that page to receive a 24 hour block for WP:NPA violations. To repost those allegations without even a court trial on Wikipedia with a Wikipedian as subject, that is one of the most disrespectful and lowest things you could do to another Wikipedian. It is bad enough when it is done to anyone, but at least people could respect the people that they edit with and not stoop to such things. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please just drop the issue, there wasn't a chance in hell of that AfD closing with a consensus either way, no matter how much canvassing you did (and still do) on IRC. Jeni ^(talk) 01:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because an argument is long and complex doesn't mean it doesn't show consensus. I think this was a premature, bad close. Of course, in full disclosure, I voted delete. But a close of "keep", after the full length it was supposed to run, would have been less troubling than this. Closing as "no consensus" was a lazy way out.

Tan | 39

01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And dishonest. --

Fatuorum

01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Understandably, I disagree that "keep" would've been the proper close. I go agree that I took a lazy way out, however, because I believe a merger is probably the best course of action overall. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

On a related note that is not specific to this particular instance, AfDs are being closed early. I meant to post the following a while ago, but it was when editors were doing the "dramaout" so I feared there would not be a large response:

One minute into the day, there was only one open AfD that has been open seven full days. While I do not doubt our administrator's skill at determining consensus, I do not believe that ~80 AfDs were closed in less than a minute. What I want to know is why administrator's aren't honoring the fact that deletion discussions at AfD are supposed to last seven days. For some reason, this is turning into a race to close more discussions than any other administrator, and it is cutting in to the time that editors are supposed to be able to argue the fates of articles. Malinaccier (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And that's sort of what I was getting at. Lifebaka, I don't mean any insult, and 99.9% of the time I support your actions. However, I have to say that this was one that should have been closed very late, if anything. Closing as "no consensus" prior to the deadline is a little illogical, no?

Tan | 39

01:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't terribly mind if you revert my close (with links here and the related thread on my talk page, if you do, for transparency) but I don't believe that an additional 14 hours, 14 days, or even 14 weeks is likely to actually change the overall consensus. I'd be happy to amend my closing statement to state such explicitly, as I really should have when I closed it.

I agree that AfDs are being closed too early these days. This has lead me away from closing AfDs, since most of the time I head over to

WP:AFDO it's empty. Cheers. lifebaka++

01:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no honesty or integrity here, so no real surprise. --

Fatuorum

01:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Is anyone taking this to DRV? I'm heading out for a bit; if it's not at DRV when I get back I'll set one up. MIght as well continue the discussion there.

Tan | 39

01:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it will matter. If the page isn't cut, the OR wont be removed (I mean, come on, a page from 2007 being used as a reference? And most people say all of the references are great. Did they even read them?). The problem wont be fixed. It will just stay there with a huge section devoted to the allegations. The only way to stop this is to put an amendment to BLP which states "No allegations" - i.e. we can briefly state that there were allegations and of the general nature, but we cannot elaborate or reproduce what they state. That would effectively kill any of these pages, as there would be no "meat" to base the page on and make it seem bigger than what it actually is. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave to the side the issue of the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts article and AfD and address the more general concern here. As others say above, AfDs are being closed too early. As someone who closes them from time to time I've noticed this, and it's something I've meant to bring up. Except in certain specific circumstances (a clear - as in very clear - WP:SNOW situation, a withdrawn nom and no real !delete votes left, etc.) AfDs should simply never be closed early. It is absolutely unnecessary. Either AfDs run 7 days or they don't. Having a deadline makes sense, because it means editors know they should be bringing in any additional information (more sources etc.) within a certain time frame. If we close 12 hours before the 7 days is up, why not close a day before? Or three? No 'crat would ever dream of closing a close RfA 12 hours early with a note saying, "at 80% so clearly going to pass," yet admins routinely shut down the AfD process early.

Why? It's hard to avoid the impression that it's because they want to close a lot of AfDs, and in order to do that you need to jump the gun. When it comes to controversial AfDs like the one discussed here, this happens quite often. Trigger happy admins sit around and can't wait to close the AfD that 200 editors commented on. This is where the real problem comes in (and I'm not saying the following is necessarily what happened in this situation with the National Portrait AfD). When it's all about being the first to close a given AfD (controversial or not), inevitably the focus will be on getting there first rather than getting it right. Most AfDs are not controversial and are easy to close, but even with those there is no godly reason to jump the gun before the 7 days are up other than wanting to be the person to close it. Clearly there is not a backlog problem (except for difficult AfDs, which can sit around), and therefore no need to get a head start. It makes no difference who closes an AfD so long as it's done well, and indeed it's probably desirable to have a number of admins closing a few AfDs rather than 2-3 closing basically all of them.

Personally I thonk we should say enough is enough. When I come across early AfD closures, I think I'll start making a point of asking the admins who close early to stop doing that when there is no reason to do so. I encourage other editors (admin or no) to do the same. If AfDs are supposed to run for seven days then lets let them run seven days (part of the irony of this is that the comment period was just extended by two days). You don't get extra ribbons on your admin buttons for closing the most AfDs on a given night, and we should be emphasizing that quality rather than speed is far more important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The nature of a wiki allows for each page, each discussion, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Yes, most discussions should run for 7 days, but there are many cases where forcing a discussion to run for 7 days is impractical, unproductive, and downright silly.

WP:IAR outlines this quite nicely, I think. –Juliancolton | ^Talk

02:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not a blanket policy. It cannot be applied to such a broad range of debates so arbitrarily. I cannot believe that out of say, 80 AfDs there are only five that are not "impractical unproductive, and downright silly" enough to close early. IAR is supposed to be applied with care on a case by case basis. Malinaccier (talk

) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As you said, arbitrary rules can't be applied to extensive processes, which is why I believe universally enforcing the 7 day rule would be inappropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that as long as there is activity and that there isn't an obvious snow (huge amounts of one side and nothing from the other), then an AfD should stay up for 7 days. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec, responding to Julian) I'm not sure that "forcing" a discussion to run for seven days is the right word here. You just let it sit there another 12 hours (or whatever)—you don't force anything. Could you outline examples of some of the "many" cases where closing before 7 days is a good idea such that we should invoke IAR, and where not closing early would be "impractical" (I find it extremely hard to believe that waiting a few more hours is impractical), etc. etc.? If there are really so many examples of that, should we not just toss out the 7 day guideline, since clearly if we follow that rule it often causes us to be "unproductive" and "silly?" I don't think you can just assert what you are asserting and toss WP:IAR into the mix, you need to explain why ignoring this particular rule (which again was specifically recently adopted since people thought 5 days was not enough time) is a good idea. As I said in my first comments there are times where an early closure makes sense (no one has said anything about "universally enforcing" the 7 day rule so that's a strawman best cast aside right now), but I'm not talking about things that end up getting speedied, SNOW closed, etc. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule, there's no deadline. It is rarely going to hurt matters if an article is open for a few more hours or days while we have possibly have further discussion. Unless of course, one is worried that we need to rush to get this all done before

the deadline. That said, I was under the impression that the extension from 5 to 7 days was made to deal with the early closes at 5 days. That is, we all knew we'd be getting closes this way at 5 or 6 days like the policy originally intended. So if we enforced the limits strictly we might then want to dial back to 5 or 6 days. JoshuaZ (talk

) 02:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(also responding to Julian) I mean a rule such as IAR, a rule that has many possible consequences to its application, not a simple technical rule such as leaving AfDs open seven days. Malinaccier (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

@Bigtimepeace: An example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikezie; CSD obviously doesn't apply and there was no landslide consensus, but it was a scenario where further discussion would be unproductive and inconclusive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

@Malinaccier: Fair enough, but I still believe very few "rules" should be blindly applied. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This has come up twice before. Once here and once over at AFD talk Here's what I said in the latter discussion...

Ideally, debates should run for 7 days but an administrator (or other) should be free to evaluate discussions on the 7 day old log without worrying about the exact second it was opened. This is especially true if the discussion has enough comments to make a call but nothing for the last few days. However, I will say that it's a good idea to start from the bottom of the log because this is where the oldest discussions and most of the relisted discussions will be. I will also concede that a closer should be more mindful of the time (not just the date) the discussion was open if he plans to close "delete" or if one of the discussions close to the top is still drawing comments

This has been common practice for as long as I have been working at AFD. IMHO if closers were barred from touching AFDs until they appeared on "old" then a lot of debates would be open a lot longer then they need to be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguably the real problem at AfD these days is not unclosed AfDs hanging around, it's a lack of comments in AfDs. Articles are routinely relisted because only one or two other people (and sometime no one) besides the nom has weighed in on the matter, thus making it impossible to determine consensus.

Also there is apparently an existing consensus on this issue, already expressed on the AfD talk page in April, and I think we should abide by it unless there's been another conversation since then. In terms of the change to 7 days, discussed here, part of the rationale was that "AFDs should be extended to 7 days to gather more opinions and because some people can only access Wikipedia on weekends." Please note SilkTork's closing note in that thread, which said the extension closed with a "strong consensus," and that "To ensure the reasoning behind this proposal is carried out, early closures need to be discouraged." This was less than four months ago, so I think we still have a consensus to discourage early closures. Unless we want to "IAR" with respect to a fairly recent and strong consensus, I think we should respect the idea that AfDs should run for 7 days, with certain specific exceptions.

If people want to close an AfD on day 6 (assuming it's not a SNOW or other obvious early close), they'll need to explain why they're going against the consensus established in the earlier conversation about this very topic. Again, I think we should all collectively ask admins who do this kind of thing to refrain from doing so—it's not necessary, and no one has argued against the idea that it inevitably leads to a race to close AfDs, with quality at times suffering as a result. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In practice, a policy that " debates should run for 7 days but an administrator (or other) should be free to evaluate discussions on the 7 day old log without worrying about the exact second it was opened. " will soon come to mean closing after 6 days. True, I don't worry about the actual seconds, but I do at least pay attention to hours (although I have once or twice been an hour off through miscalculation of time zones). DGG (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like add my voice to those who feel early AfD closures are a problem. If the guidelines say "at least 7 days", which they do, then debate should run at least 7 days - not 6d1h, 6d12, or 6d20h. The "rush to close" mentality currently found at AfD is seriously bothersome. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

(thread hijack) I haven't cruised by AfD in quite awhile, because it doesn't seem to need my help. But I can't help but notice we have almost month long backlogs at

03:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

A very good point, which I say as someone very much guilty of not helping out with those backlogs. Obviously AfDs (and articles generally) are more high profile and therefore attract more admin attention, but that's not a great excuse, and I think your point is well taken that early AfD closes seem especially unwarranted when there are backlogs elsewhere. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion relating to the above named parties. It may be viewed at WP:AC/N.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MBisanz ^talk 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

I remember seeing a discussion on tagging articles and another editor mentioned the Category:Articles needing additional references from June 2006 page [11] on a talk page. I think it's worth addressing whether these tags are helpful to our readers and whether there's a better way to include them and get articles fixed up. Is that discussion still active somewhere? Was it resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You might have better luck asking at the

Village Pumps; this doesn't really have anything to do with administrators per se. FWIW, that page is only wikilinked from one user talkpage. Regards,  Skomorokh 

07:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Would it go in the Policy, Technical, Proposals, or Miscellaneous section at the Village Pump? I've seen it said that Wikipedia is a

choose your own adventure book... ChildofMidnight (talk

) 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy (if you're interested in a formal change, or finding out what the prevailing consensus is) or Misc (if you're looking for an unstructured general discussion) I'd say. Good luck on the Garden of Forking Paths.  Skomorokh  08:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If only Garmin made a gadget to help me navigate the policy pages. My map and compass aren't helping much at all and I keep hitting dead ends where the story ends unsatisfactorily. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we get someone to cleanup the text-blocking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kira Takenouchi (2nd nomination). Two editors have added huge blocks of unformated text, which makes the discussion difficult to follow. --Farix (Talk) 15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't an admin issue. (And personally, I didn't find it so difficult to follow that reformatting someone else's comments would be called for, but that's just me.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Places impacted by urban decay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chocolatechipcookie91 (talk · contribs · count · logs · email)

Can someone please look at this and the edit history of the creator and tell me if this qualifies as a CSD? It appears to be highly point of view motivated. Please take care of the procedures needed to delete if possible and let me know the best way to handle dubious categories as opposed to articles. Sswonk (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Was recreated multiple times by same user after being deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_26. User was previously given a final warning, and blocked for 48 hours following today's recreation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I need an admin to add

) 18:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest the alt text to be used at

editprotected}} to the page. –xeno^talk

02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Request to use an image

Resolved

Please allow to use the image File:Édouard-Henri Avril (29).jpg in the article trainfuck NSFW so that I can improve the article and prevent deletion. Thank you. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. - BanyanTree 07:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a ridiculously bad article. The references are just links to porn sites. It even has the classic line "But sometimes the roles are switched and bottoms become tops and tops give up their asses." - deary me. Can this just go or does it have to be AfD'd? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The above talk page seems to have got screwed up somehow. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC) OK, forget that, somebody's fixed it. Thanks to whoever that was. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just speedily closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail (DC Comics) (2nd nomination). I want to flag the situation up since the article was nominated one day after a deletion debate had been closed as No consensus regarding the same article. The article had been nominated both times by TTN (talk · contribs), who has formerly been involved in arbitration cases, namely Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. TTN makes pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate, but I do find myself concerned give the user's past history. I offer up both my close of the debate and the swift renomination for review and comment, given my concern and also the possibility that such concern has biased me. Hiding T 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• The remedies for EnC 2 have long since elapsed, so my first comment is that something shouldn't be closed simply because TTN opened it. It was probably right to be closed, though it didn't meet any speedy keep criteria. I'm pretty unhappy to see all the old warhorses dragged out again on these AfDs...kind of reminds me why I left that whole part of the 'pedia. IMO you haven't done anything wrong, hiding. Protonk (talk) 06:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  zee problem is TTN has imediately returned to what got him sanctioned in the first place.©Geni 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Remedy 1 had a time limit; Remedy 2 did not. Remedy 2 directed the parties in conflict "to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question." If TTN's current editing practices have violated this direction, there are two courses of action -- returning to Arbcom for enforcement action, or developement of a community sanction. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Except interested parties have repeatedly sought clarification on remedy 2's applicability to TTN's AfD crusade (of sorts) and been told, variously, that it didn't apply. Protonk (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete "
  article" — Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground is only a policy, not a reality ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew
  08:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  and which way would you personally prefer to have it? DGG (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  I would prefer it if more editors where here to build a respectable encyclopaedia rather than having no idea what the distinction between that and a fansite might be. That's the core issues. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. What do we discriminate against? Fanwank. Cruft. Swamps of plot summary. Disruptive editors who are vision impaired. Inappropriate content should be removed Mercilessly. Wikia can have the inappropriate content; they can have the editors who are primarily interested in such content, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  Do you create quality articles Jack? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There should not be a time limit for renominating for a no-consensus closure, as "no consensus" is emphatically not "keep". Anything that can get a definite consensus one way or the other is better. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree, but offer that would that to be the case, we should simply not close discussions until consensus has been reached. A re-nomination one day after the closure of the previous discussion is always bound to seem "off", for want of a better word, and in all my time on Wikipedia there's been an assumption that a month is a "reasonable", for want of a better word, period between afd nominations. And since consensus can change, it's always hard to pin down exactly what a "definite" consensus is. I'm sure you'd agree a page for which a consensus to keep has emerged can later be nominated for deletion. I think a lot of the time it is about that collegiate atmosphere we are supposed to enjoin in. It involves us thinking to ourselves, well that was a really dumb decision, but perhaps the right time to mention that would be in a couple of weeks rather than right now. Or do we disregard the idea that politeness, good faith, civility and eventuality are the oil which keeps the engine of collaboration working? Is it better to get the right result with the "least" amount of fuss or the "most" amount of fuss? A perusal of the second debate shows it descending into typical "farce". Waiting a month may have avoided feeding some of the "actors" a pre-prepared "script", if you catch my drift. Like I said, TTN made pertinent points in the debate, but the speed with which the article is nominated forces the debate on to different ground. I'm wondering if the pertinent points would be better able to breathe if they were made in a month or so, and that such a wait might also remove any concerns regarding TTN's behaviour such as the ones I found myself pondering and which led to this discussion in the first place. Hiding T 09:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Consensus can change, but it tends not to do so in the blink of an eye unless you have some very persuasive arguments. Certainly repeat nominations can happen, but doing so immediately seems unwise, and very likely to be a waste of both time and breath -- hardly fair to those involved in those discussions if they have to keep going at it day in, day out. If the closure is inappropriate, that's a different thing, but at this rate the discussion might as well not have been closed at all. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This really does seem disruptive at best, isn't there a Magic 8-ball page about gaming the system until you get your preferred outcome is wrong? If this editor has been active for a while in this one area and they were encouraged by Arbcom to work toward a more equitable long-term consensus then this really would seem counter to that. Instead of working toward solutions it seems like a campaign to simply remove items one doesn't like which may or may not actually help the overall situation. Relying on outside wikis to be the repository only works if we are sure which information actually is or isn't encyclopedic. Frankly it's either on Wikipedia or it's not - we shouldn't expect anyone else to hold stuff we might think is worthy, it's either kept or not. With a lot of these articles as well mergers into lists with redirects would be acceptable routes but the adversarial approach hinders consensus-building to do that. It takes work to dialog and hear each other and it takes more work to merge or listify than delete. If TTN is unwilling or unable to play nice and try to make that happen then maybe they should take a break and get some perspective. If they are frustrated likely others are as well.

-- Banjeboi

10:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see why this automatically has to be me forcing my view. Has anyone actually taken a good look at the first one? The first two days were slow, with one delete and one comment from A Nobody stating that there are other topics with the same name as

, the second article in the nomination. A Nobody then should have either waited for the article to be deleted, or just have created separate articles, but he did not do that at all. Instead, he combined all three topics inappropriately, which lead to an obvious keep for that article. Afterward, the article was split, and the original content was easily removed and forgotten, which means that it would have been deleted had he not done that.

That whole mess overshadowed

) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments on two separate issues:
  • Regarding previous Arbitration, there was also the declined E&C3 (Jan 2009): Request to amend Full case
  • Regarding DRV, no consensus closures are particularly difficult to overturn, but I think there's enough here for a reasonable discussion. Relist as new AfD is also a possible, though unlikely, outcome.
    Flatscan (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - to get back to Hiding's original point, I must have misread that bit at the end of the original AfD, where DGG and other arch deletionists noted the merits of renominating separately based on the divergence of sources available to the original articles in question. In the highly unlikely event that such a discussion did in fact take place it would then appear that, yes, Hiding, you did act rather inappropriately - not only in closing as you did, but further in imputing as you have the motives of the nomination since reasonable grounds had been provided in the first go-round to separate out the nomination into individual AfDs. However, what's done is done, so the best outcome here is to admonish User:Hiding to act more responsibly in the future. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't recall outlining anywhere what I had "imputed" the motives of the nomination to be, whatever that means, but take the thrust of your criticism on board. My only wish was to try and cut drama off at the outset and work out from there. As I said when I brought the thing here, TTN raised pertinent points regarding why he relisted in the deletion debate. Any "imputation" has as much to do with reactions to anything TTN does as much as to anything TTN does. The second debate was becoming somewhat "unhelpful", and rather than see that develop along such an "unhelpful" path, I thought it might be better to take a step back. As to what the first debate debated, there's a wonderful "smorgasbord" of opinion raised within it, such that any potential outcome could be viable, and it doesn't logically lend to a swift, unchallenged renomination. If it did, the original closer would have closed according to that consensus. But I take on board the advice that sometimes I don't get it right, even if I try to do so for the best of reasons, and I thank you for your feedback. It's a shame you imputed my motives so incorrectly too, but then... Hiding T 20:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I just looked at
    Grail (DC Comics) and its sources, and I'm going to propose a merge to Preacher_(comics). --Enric Naval (talk
    ) 14:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:N3D may be a useful essay to consult in this situation. Flatscan (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am unable to log into my account and it says that I did not register an e-mail address to have a new password sent to when I created the account. My account is now 7 years old and I have made a few contributions with it that I don't want to lose. Per meta:Privacy policy#Discussions I would like to request that an e-mail address be added to my account so that I may recover my password. How can I contact an admin to go about this? 98.231.181.127 (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This is server level stuff. An administrator can't do that. Also, if you've left this account unused for seven years, just make a new one and move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I've used the account for 7 years, not left it sitting... I've only been away from wikipedia for about 3-4 weeks and now I'm unable to log in. How can I contact someone who can handle server level stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.181.127 (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. That makes more sense. I am still not sure of the proper channel to request assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• The history of the account does not die, and is available to you and everyone else. I suppose contacting one of the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats would be worthwhile. They would know if you can be aided or not, or what avenue, if any, is available. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The only people who can add an email address to your account or reset the password for you are the developers. You will also need to be able to verify your identity in some way, for example, have you emailed someone in the past who can verify that your account really belongs to you and that you are the person you claim you are. I would probably start with the Functionaries mailing list, functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. Thatcher 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice to have a location function, see trustedsource.com for an example, for when a location is needed say for a suicide or violence threat. Otherwise, good tool :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for a good geoIP tool. but I cant find one that can be read via script.

β^_command

01:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is this. Not sure if you can put that in script or not, but it does have a search box on the parent site and gives a Google Maps view of where the IP comes from. Not sure if that helps or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Found one, Single IP Lookup now has IP geolocation :P

β^_command

01:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it GeoLite City? If not, you may want to look into GeoLite city. CSV imports easily into a MySQL database and there are monthly updates. Accuracy is something like 83% within a 25-mile radius. — madman bum and angel 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, I have bookmarked it and will use it when needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Very useful, Betacommand. I tested a few that I knew would do the trick, and it did. Keegan (talk) 04:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks handy, but I checked 2 IPs and they came up with almost no information (despite being currently blocked). Example. Bug? -- Luk ^talk 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the issue. any more crop up let me know.

β^_command

13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, it says that I live in Vallejo, California. hmwitht 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, it's very handy! -- Luk ^talk 10:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Im looking for a better geoip tool than I have any suggestions are welcome.

β^_command

13:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate can only go so far. This is not a Bad Thing® Keegan (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Beta, what determines the range caluclated in the first tool? It is the largest range blockable on en.wp owned by the target ISP or is it something else? Protonk (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

whois -h whois.cymru.com " -v -f 127.0.0.1" is the whois query and where the CIDR is obtained from.

β^_command

22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I reported some vandal-only account earlier for trying to crash people's browsers by vandalizing the featured article with links to a gigantic subpage. Now socks are doing the same to my talk page. Can someone please semiprotect it for a day or so?

) 03:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I also logged at

WP:RPP on your behalf.    7   ^talk | Δ 

|   03:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys! They're still creating accounts or else there are sleepers. Maybe a checkuser or an IP block is in order?

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 03:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Longtime blocked user requesting unblock

Resolved

 – Tantalus boldly took this one on. Its his problem now. Via con dios! --Jayron32 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

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

User is making a compelling case for being unblocked. Given the nature of his block, I am bringing it here for consensus. I am officially neutral on the subject. --Jayron32 02:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree broadly with ForesticPig's comment. A block that removes a wikilawying account is generally a good one, but the stated justification was worrying. But NPOV isn't a suicide pact. I'm hesitant to recommend an unblock because the reason is insufficient. An unblock should show that ICB was wrong, that circumstances have changed, or that editor behavior has changed. We should have some confidence that the same course of action won't be pursued following the unblock (or, obviously, some confidence that the course of action wasn't wrong in the first place). I don't see that here. Protonk (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The ed. offers not to edit in the field that was the source of the problem, but while he was here he seems not to have edited any other area (broadly speaking).DGG (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"In light of this, I am willing to avoid all articles on the topic in the future if that is necessary so as to consequently avoid involvement in further negative disputes if unblocked, though I would prefer otherwise"--So he does. I skipped over that sentence. If that is the case then I'm ok w/ an unblock. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose unblock of former SPA, if he wants to edit other than the child sexuality areas he can set up a new account but this account with its record shouldn't be editing wikipedia at all. Thanks,

talk

13:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks relate to the person not the account. The last thing we want him to do is start another account and edit a different topic area without the block log linking the old account to the new. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked him with an effective topic ban from any articles related to youth rights, pedophilia, or anything remotely related. I will take responsibility to monitor contributions for a period of time; any admin can re-block without consultation or warning.

18:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to comment that I might have overstepped my bounds here - not in the unblock itself, which I think is appropriate, but in that Jayron put the unblock request on hold so that he might gather consensus here. I saw Protonk's agreement with the potential unblock and, feeling the same way, stepped in. I apologize if I acted prematurely or stepped on Jayron's toes. I should have just said my piece here and let Jayron handle it. That said, I don't think we needed a long !vote on this; a couple opinions and we're good to go. We can always reblock if abuse resumes.

Tan | 39

19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's all good dude, I don;t mind at all. If you're unblocking him, I'll assume your also taking tacit responsibility as well; just keep an eye out for any of the former problems that led to his block. --Jayron32 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone should inform the blocking admin of this discussion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• You should hop on that, ICB. Protonk (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite resolved yet. Take a look at this edit.[17] Thoughts? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• He's free to think whatever he wants about culpability, IMO. The conditions of the unblock still apply. Should he violate them he'll be indeffed again. Protonk (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

) 16:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on the present AN thread concerns, I have removed the autoreviewer userright. Any admin may feel free to reinstate without contacting me. — Scientizzle 17:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Um. I'd be curious as to Closedmouth's decision to delete that article - there was no speedy deletion notification (and "complete bullshit" doesn't really compare to our speedy deletion categories, considering the article had references, though weak), the article's been around for a couple of years, Victor Lopes has been editing with no apparent problems since 2006... this seems kind of abrupt. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It was more on the sense of IAR than anything else, I would say. The article presented an "Alien Encounter" as if it were fact, and had no useful content. I suppose it technically could or should have gone through AfD, but this was a fine application of the IAR in my opinion. NW (Talk) 20:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. En-cy-clo-pe-dia. Not a judgment on Victor, but that article really had no merit. Keegan (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest at least a bit more investigation. In my experience, Victor Lopes is a decent and sensible editor, and quick to see other points of view. He could at least be allowed to have his say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back online and clicked through the deleted revisions of

WP:RS

muster or an AfD discussion, but there were sources. A DRV may be appropriate if anyone is interested in pursing it, but Closedmouth should naturally be contacted first.

Given all of this, I've unmarked this thread as "resolved", I'll reinstate the autoreviewer userright for Victor Lopes, and I'll drop a line to Closedmouth. — Scientizzle 21:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe a person who calls other experienced editors' work "bullshit" and then delete it without even notifying the author is qualifyied enough to be an administrator. However, this is not the matter here. Scientizzle recovered my autoreviewer rights after I started writing here but he did it before I could send this message, so I'll just paste my original comment: "I humbly believe my autoreviewer rights shouldn't be removed, because only this and a couple of other articles of mine have been deleted, out of more than 300 I created. In addition, that article was created when I wasn't that experienced, but these rights were given to me just some time ago, after I expanded my understandings of the Wiki politics. And let's face it: these rights are a benefit for users, and not for me: I can keep creating as many good articles as I want with or without the autoreviewer rights, but being in this group makes the job of newpages patrollers easier". I'd like to thank Scientizzle for putting me back to the group of autoreviewers. I honestly can't guarantee this will be my last deleted article, but I always try to provide a minimum of qualification for my articles to stay. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 21:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no personal aspect to this deletion, I killed it solely on its merits as an article; i.e, it had none. It was an extremely poorly sourced personal account of a UFO abduction. Its existence was detrimental to the credibility of the encyclopedia. AFD would have been unnecessary process for process's sake. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Next time, maybe you could use an actual speedy deletion criteria instead of "complete bullshit," which is totally inappropriate? I'm not saying that if I'd come across that as tagged for speedy I wouldn't have deleted it, but tagged as "complete bullshit" I'd have rejected pretty much immediately. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm speaking in abstract terms here, and not of a particular incident. I'm seeking input on this abstract concept.

Suppose a particular editor "John Doe" has an "opinion X". The opinion is relevant to a broad variety of articles, media and meta pages in Wikipedia. Over time, when John Doe has expressed opinion X, it has routinely been shown that vis-a-vis policy and principles of Wikipedia that opinion is false. Yet, whenever a relevant subject is brought up at a new location, Opinion X is brought out by John Doe again.

At what point does the continual insistence of such opinion in the face of facts to the contrary become disruptive? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether you're asking about assertions or opinions — two very different concepts. By definition, an opinion can't be false. It's a personal belief or judgment that falls short of absolute certainty. It can be shocking, upsetting, controversial, ill-founded, ill-considered, or poorly-formed, but never false. On the other hand, an assertion can certainly be false, whether as a result of a policy being sufficiently directive as to leave no room for interpretation or as a result of a policy being interpreted by the community in a manner that enjoys wide consensus. In either case, either opinion or assertion becomes disruptive once a consensus is developed that the community is no longer willing to provide the latitude for that opinion or assertion to be expressed — the former is just a very slippery slope. How quickly that point is reached depends on specific circumstances. Mlaffs (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I bet 100 Linden dollars this is about a specific incident. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Found it. [18]. Pay up Hammersoft. MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Incorrect. You are encouraged to follow
  WP:NPA
  .
• A series of different incidents culminated recently in some ruminations I was having while driving somewhere. I have seen several editors maintain interpretations of policy that have routinely been proven to not agree with consensus. Yet, they continue to maintain the consensus is wrong, and they are correct. What typically happens is a given person involves themselves in a debate which has some parallels to prior debates. They introduce the false assertion, resulting in the debate spinning off onto a discussion about the merits of the false assertion. This frequently has the effect of derailing effective debate. I find it wholly disruptive when the same editors do this repeatedly, knowing full well their interpretation does not agree with consensus. I've seen a number of editors do this. But, there's no protocol for handling situations like this other than drawing the user into a long, drawn out, and usually ineffective RFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was this exchange actually [19]. The trouble is Hammersoft is always 100% convinced he is right, and anybody else's assertions must be false. But in reality this is not so. Jheald (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you too Jheald, for presuming I'm lying. How many times do I have to say I am not referring to a specific incident before I am given the privilege of
  assumption of good faith? If I had a specific incident in mind, I would bring it up at an appropriate noticeboard. I speak plainly and clearly, and am quite willing to bring specific incidents up as needed. That is not the case now. I _AM_ speaking in the abstract. If you can't contribute to this thread without accusing me of lying, I would thank you for not contributing. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 18:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• And if anyone else thinks I'm lying and am actually thinking of a particular incident, my concern in this realm of lather-rinse-repeat arguments dates back at least as far as December of 2008. Go look for yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In abstract terms; for an editor to maintain a position that is agreed as incorrect there must have been a definite decision made in the matter (a consensus, an authoritative opinion, an RfC, an ArbCom finding, etc.) - they can be referred to that incident. Of course, consensus can change but if there have been no developments within the position then that will not apply. Likewise, if there have been no intervening processes rendering a different finding the original conclusion remains. I suggest simply referring to the original dismissal of the argument and ignoring any attempt to restart that discussion. If the other party persists, then they are disrupting the project. However, there does need to be this instance where the editors position was found to be in error. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic discussions like this, based on vague descriptions of behavior of other users are rarely helpful. Unless we have a specific incident to judge, there is little helpful guidance we can provide, because there is no way that any opinions rendered here could be applicable to any real world situation. Worse, when people reply to this vague discussion, there is a distinct possibility that one overextend the opinions rendered here to apply to a real situation where they do not apply. In other words, someone could look at this academic, rhetorical discussion and then say to someone they are in conflict with "See, all the admins agree with ME" even though no admin actually gave an opinion on that specific situation. Either give us a REAL situation or conflict to respond to, or let this subject die. There is nothing helpful that can come from it. --Jayron32 23:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Point understood. So let me take this angle of it; is there a precedent? I'm not looking to apply a precedent as you suggest a scenario above. I'm simply looking for direction on how something like this is handled, if at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that the http://wikipedia.cx domain redirects to Uncyclopedia. There are also many Wikipedias under other TLD that are cybersqutted. Isn't this a violation of the Wikimedia foundation's copyright? Triplestop x3 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really something the general admin populace can do anything about. –xeno^talk 20:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, this is a matter for the Foundation and its General Counsel. – ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When questioned about this in the past, Brion has expressed disinterest in doing anything about it. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't uncyclopedia a Wikia-owned entity anyway?

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 22:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikia and the Wikimedia Foundation are 100% independent from each other. There are some personel overlaps, but for all intents and purposes, they are unrelated to each other. --Jayron32 23:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody move Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumbai to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mumbai/archive1, and delete the former? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, {{Db-move}} should be used next time, or a note on my talkpage. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. This is a request for all editors to help enforce the BLP policy in a particular case, and can now be found on the proper noticeboard for that. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. This is not a proposal that is confined to administrators, and now can be found in the proper place for proposals aimed at the general editorship of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Please note the emphasised text in the edit notice when adding to this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

While doing some searching related to an AFD, I came across this book: "Encyclopedia of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh", in 9 volumes, by Om Gupta. I was quite surprised to see that the entire book (compiled in 2006) is a collection of articles taken verbatim from Wikipedia. While that isn't a problem at all, I noticed that Gupta has not acknowledge the source at all in the book (at least what was available for preview at Google Books).

• ISBN 9788182053892
• Amazon link
• Google Books Preview

Please check the intro, I don't see a single mention of Wikipedia, nor any acknowledgement as required under GFDL. Google shows the book to be "copyrighted work". From Google Books, I see Gupta has published other similar "encyclopedias" as well.

Can anyone (especially from the foundation) look into this? In particular, this seems to violate GFDL. The books are sold on Amazon for the hefty price of $300+. --Ragib (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While this might be a foundation issue, I posted it here so that no one would be confused about copyvios ... Gupta's "encyclopedia" is not a source, rather it is a 2006 copy of Wikipedia. --Ragib (talk) 23:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 20#The Alphascript-Amazon-Wikipedia book hoax for a similar issue. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This case is probably different from the Alphascript case. They acknowledged Wikipedia, but I don't see anything like that in Gupta's book. (at least in the parts I can see from Google Books). --Ragib (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly an uncredited rip. Random example: compare this to

(❝?!❞)

23:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As long as they write the required GFDL attribution somewhere in that book it counts as a legal notice. It doesn't have to be written out in a preview or in a bibliographical description. That's how Alphascript is getting away with their awful copies: They have all the legal notices in tiny characters, as required, in each printed book, even if they don't have them in summaries and descriptions on Amazon. --AlainV (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, right. Then it seems the issue can't be taken any further unless someone can examine a copy and verify whether the notice is there somewhere. Oh well! —

(❝?!❞)

20:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think it's a foundation issue. I think the procedure listed at

DMCA bit. Note that the inquirer must be someone who holds partial copyright to some of the content. It is the copyright holders themselves who have to defend their rights, without any backing from the foundation. decltype (talk

) 01:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If he's using GFDL licensed material, which it was when he acquired it, theres a long and ardous (i think it works out to like 5 pages) that he has to print at the beginning and a list of, at a minimum, the 5 principal authors of each work. --

M^ask?

05:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, now he has the option of GFDL and Creative Commons BY-SA. And no sane re-user would pick GFDL for the reason you described. rspεεr (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

But as noted above, this was not an option in 2006. He obtained the work under the GFDL. --

M^ask?

09:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any volunteer who contributed to one of the articles used to get in touch with the GNU people and probably the EFF? This seems almost an ideal thing to use as a test case for a copyleft license. --

M^ask?

09:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Final call for voting at Checkuser/Oversight election

The

August 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections

will end at 23:59 UTC on August 10, in approximately 3.5 hours. Voting is currently underway.

For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm Su-young, a researcher in KISDI (Korea information society development institute). We're doing a comparative study to identify factors affecting Wikipedia users' usage and participation between Korean and English version by surveying the participants' motivations as well as knowledge and cultural characteristics.

I'd like to ask you if it's possible to expose our survey link in the sitenotice of English Wikepedia. In the case of Korean Wikipedia, members have agreed on putting a survey link in the sitenotice after discussing our survey proposal. As the focus of our research is in comparing the two different Wikipedias, it's very important to do a survey to English Wikipedians.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and your responses are absolutely confidential. Also, We will post the total results of our survey including its analysis, which will be helpful for understanding the causes of differences on among various Wikipedias. It'll extend our understanding of diverse collective intelligence as well. I'll really appreciate for your opinions and advices. Thank you very much.--Iloveyoufirst21 (talk) 02:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry but sitenotices are reserved for messages of importance to all Wikipedia readers and contributors. We do not add surveys to it. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? I feel like we've done it before.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a watchlist notice, rather than a sitenotice. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It was done before, but by the Foundation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you let me know where I can find a watchlist notice? I'd like to find all the possible ways to expose our research.--Iloveyoufirst21 (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing it to the village pump for proposals, as this is a matter for the entire community to decide, not just administrators. Powers ^T 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ LtPowers here, though my suggestion would be that you simply bring your survey to the village pump to advertise it. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all your advice. I really appreciate it.--Iloveyoufirst21 (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm here to humbly request some assistance in reviewing editors over at

 ]  23:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering

Umm ... what purpose does allowing you to block for a fortnight serve? :-) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That funny. :) Seriously though, you can do that?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 04:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just today I felt like giving an IP a fortnight block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can give all kinds of bizarre expiry times. Whatever time parser they use is very robust. Icewedge (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Supposedly the software will recognize any time interval that

microfortnights. — Gavia immer (talk

) 05:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's where it's documented, for the record. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently won't honor a block for four score and twain years. How disappointing. decltype (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think relative dates are the most amusing, such as "one year ago" ([23]). Icewedge (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, nice bug :D -- Luk ^talk 12:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lol... Can a block be set for a millisecond? What about a nanosecond?

^alternate

14:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe so. Of course, the block will expire before the request finishes processing.

a/c

) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Help with Village pump archive merge - the bots are after me

Could someone please help me fix a little archive confusion at the VPP? Two bots didn't agree, but I've fixed that. Can someone histmerge

02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If a histmerge doesn't leave a redirect, I can do the second part myself. Obviously. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All done. For future reference, per the eidt noticce, this would be better off on ANI. Viridae^Talk 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted to the combined archive before either bot appended to the partial version. Flatscan (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI? I don't need Cluebot blocked. Thanks for the help! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The AN structure is being reworked. For more information, see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive199#Use of this page and various discussions at WT:Administrators' noticeboard. Flatscan (talk) 03:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We really need more editors and particularly admins (since the delete tool comes in handy for this job) helping out with copyright investigations.

, we've got that board under control. If there are any admins (or other readers here) who have an interest in keeping our content legal, we could seriously use a hand. I dream of a day when we have more contributors than work to be done. :)

I wish I could think of a way to more proactively treat the problem. The current method we use is pretty inefficient. There must be some way to keep stuff like this from happening. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Many dealt with, many more to go! I'll try to stop by from time to time. This is important work. decltype (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We could make a new edit filter that googles every edit before it is committed...might slow the site down a bit though... Thatcher 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a tad. ;) Protonk (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Now you're thinking, Thatcher, but I think a better way to handle all this craziness would be to stop all self-directed instant editing. Think about it - all the problems we have, from vandalism and copyvios to POV-pushers and illiterates are all rooted in this crazy "anybody can edit right now" mentality. If people want to make changes, they can submit an application in triplicate including a rationale for their suggested changes and their full resume, to a triple level editorial board for consideration, factual review and verification and finally, implementation. Trust me, this is the way of the future and it will fix all our problems. hawhaw Sarah 00:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! Too bad someone else already had it... :-) Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 00:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there an abuse filter to report removals of copyvio notices? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that I know of. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Edit filter#Removing copyright tags. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this should be on

WP:VPT but it was ignored there and then archived without reply

.

Since

06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Database reports seems to be active enough, or at least it was a few months ago. Protonk (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Also DB dumps just got restarted, so maybe there will be a resurgence in interest in that sort of thing? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly but I thought I'd ask here to see if there is anyone really willing to consider doing it. Regards SoWhy 10:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Attention: high holy wikipedian

from this guy: bigtimepeace. he says,

Single-payer

Please start discussing the changes you are making to

20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

===my response is,

consensus-building, yes, but not consensus defining. plus, i explained my edits, while the reversions were *not* explained, and consensus is no excuse for irrelevancy. on this basis, i feel harassed, unduly chastised, and my time and efforts disrespected. just because the admin (as proudly self-identified) bigtimepeace has no basis for their reversion, it doesn't mean that i should be required to do extra legwork, or be threatened with sanction. i suggest that the person taking the action reverting, deleting or creating paragraphs should be able to back it up with at minimum a short and relevant explanation. wikipedia is supposed to be about the written word! relevancy changes with time, and consensus cannot be a catch-all for deletions of significant parts of politically charged current topics. 24.2.247.208 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you two posting this here? Take it to your own talk pages or the article talk pages. If you can't reach agreement use

dispute resolution. Exxolon (talk

) 00:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, as it were, I did not post the above comment here, nor was I informed of this thread. The initial comment with my signature was posted by me on the talk page of the IP editor and then cut and pasted here by that editor. This is a content issue, so there's nothing more to say about it at this board, but I just wanted it to be clear that I did not bring it here in the first place. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

was User:Tom harrison Mass Delete Of Pages

The admin User:Tom harrison just mass deleted every page a banned user touched, then protected his user talk page so noone could comment on it while he was fixing his mistake. This kind of error is HUGE, to just mass delete every page a user ever edited if they're banned?! Thought this should be looked at a little further why such a major error like that took place. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the protection was a mistake since Tom reverted it. I suggest you bring the matter with him first, now that you can contact him on his talk page. -- Luk ^talk 14:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems this was about deleting the selected edits from the history of pages in question. As long as everything is fixed now, I don't see any problem here. --Tone 14:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried it on his talk page at first, then someone reverted it (i added it back) then the page was promptly protected from further edits so I posted here. So the discussion would take place here now. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, I don't understand what he's doing. He must be an idiot. I'll go and interrupt his work and berate him on his talk page. Now he's trying to cover up his mistake! Not only stupid, but evil too! Quick, to the barricades! Seriously, besides good faith, you might at least begin with the assumption that other people know what they're doing, investigate, think, then ask politely if it still looks like a mistake. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was obviously a mistake, but I posted here after you made it not possible for me to follow-up on your talk page about the mistake. Was a pretty big mistake though, admittedly. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Raeky, that’s simply not true. You screamed at him at 14:31, then again at 14:33. He answered you quite politely at 14:34. You posted this admin’s notice thread at 14:38. Please don’t mischaracterize the timeline. — Satori Son 14:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted at 14:31, reverted the deletion of my post on 14:33, the page was protected on 14:33, I noticed the protection, looked up this page to post and made that post on 14:38, he unprotected his page on 14:39. Get the complete timeline before you criticize mine. Thanks. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 15:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Raeky, beware of using ALL CAPITALS IN YOUR POSTS, because that's generally viewed as "shouting," thus uncivil, thus could be removed. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was INTENDED as shouting, that evolution faq represented A LOT of work. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you had bothered to read the two sections above your post on Tom harrison's talk page, you would have figured out what was going on. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(

WP:BAN. Deleting pages and then selectively restoring only the non-banned users' interleaved edits? At best, that seems yucky to me. It now looks like non-banned users made the banned user's edits. At worst, that's a WP:GFDL violation, isn't it? Wknight94 ^talk

14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the user was reverted and then both the user's edit and the revert were deleted, so there's no problem with wrongly attributed edits, at least. --Conti|✉ 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's very difficult to say when you look at this edit. In reality, this user only changed one line (see my reconstruction) but it looks like he completely re-did the whole page! And that's only in the first deleted page that I checked. I'm all for undoing banned user's contributions but that's not what happened here. The contributions weren't undone, they were reattributed. Bad mojo. Wknight94 ^talk 15:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yikes, I didn't notice that. If the edits of a banned user are so bad that they need to be deleted immediately, misattributing those edits to another user in good standing seems even worse to me. --Conti|✉ 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I will revert or try to carefully undo the content contributed by a banned user, but in cases like these where the edits are interspersed all throughout, I just leave them alone and say c'est la vie. See

talk · contribs) - I undid what I could easily undo but I'm not going to try to extract his edits from Dan Marino made two months before he was identified as a banned sock. In this case, I recommend restoring all of the edits and more carefully undoing them. Wknight94 ^talk

17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting oversight (assuming the edits of the banned user meet the requirements at

WP:OVER can also be a helpful tool in some situations like this. — Kralizec! (talk

) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They can now do oversight in a way that the user name is just hidden, can't they? If that works the way I think it does, that might also be a good approach. But like you say, I'm not sure enforcing

WP:BAN qualifies for oversight. Wknight94 ^talk

17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys work it out and let me know. I'm going on break. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Tom might have done well to use a more informative deletion summary (rather than just "banned user" you could use "deleting edits from banned user, restoring page shortly" or some such). Either way, hysterically DEMANDING AND SHOUTING probably isn't going to help this situation, or even get an adequate response. What ever happened to a simple, "Hey, why did you do this?" This is a wiki, after all: almost any action can be reversed, including admin actions. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the drama here (seriously, yelling and screaming is what children do when they don't get what they want), this provides a neat example of why CSD-BAN is not a terribly good idea. Protonk (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's a good concept - it just wasn't done properly here. Wknight94 ^talk 00:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, where no good deed goes unpunished. ➲ REDVERS ^{It sucks to be me} 07:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I enforce Morrow's ban by undoing all his work that I can, and deleting all his revisions that I can, while minimizing disruption and inconvenience, subject to technical limitations. Obviously there's judgment involved choosing trade-offs. Informed, intelligent feedback from the community is helpful and welcome, and Wknight94 makes a legitimate point that I'll keep in mind. It would also be helpful if more people who felt able to would enforce this ban. It's great that Wknight94's taken an interest. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why haven't admins been granted with
  WP:RevDel yet? Seems like this would be a good way to go about this... Rather than deleting and selectively restoring, which brings up these attribution issues. –xeno^talk
  14:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It hasn't been fully tested yet. Brion said that last time there was a bug. It was likely fixed, but he has not been able to test RevDel again. Part of the reason he is going to clone himself —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see these deletions as violation of policy. I quote "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that their edits are prima facie unwanted and may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. " Have all these edits been checked to see they were not obviously helpful edits? I do not see any policy by which the edits can be deleted unless they are harmful, except when they are entire articles which the banned ed. has started after the ban, and even then with due consideration to other contributors--there were in fact a few of these. In general mass anythings without prior notice are not a good idea--there should at least have been a pre-announcement here and an more explicit note on the ed's talk page. Under what policy does Tom justify this? DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Amorrow edits articles about female living persons, then contacts them and directs them to his edits so he can prove he has control over them, and then offers to meet with them in person to discuss the situation. Under such circumstances, no edit by Amorrow is beneficial in the long term, even though it might seem so to someone who does not know his history. There are other technically banned editors whom I would not lift a finger to revert as long as they were acting in a low key and beneficial manner. This is not one of those cases. Seriously. Thatcher 05:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good reason to selectively selectively delete. I can't see any reason to delete this one, for instance. --NE2 05:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor your talking about that was editing FAQ pages and specifically the ones about Evolution that I monitor does NOT sound like the person your talking about. The edits at first was not considered abusive, but as a whole he was tweaking the meaning and structure of the FAQ and ultimately the editors decided to undue his edits. But looking at the evolution talk page you can see we didn't initially believe his edits was harmful. As far as my judgement goes with the edits *I* saw the editor that was reverted made didn't justify a wholesale deletion of his edits. He *may* have made some serious violations in his edits, sure, I didn't see them (and I was looking at quite a few of his edits while he edited the Evolution FAQ), but just a couple major violations IMHO doesn't justify the actions this admin took to revert every edit he ever made. LOTS of his edits was simple spelling fixes and other harmless edits. If he did make an edit that was SOOO bad that it needed to be hidden from public view, then that individual edit should of been hidden, not reverting hundreds of edits. This is not an action I can back up, unless you can justify the MAJORITY of his edits as so offensive they must be hidden from public view, then there is no justification for this action. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher, if what you say is true, we should certainly do our utmost to keep him away from Wikipedia. I can understand the desire to take any possible action, but I do not see how these deletions will keep him from trying to misuse Wikipedia. They have not done so up to now, have they? In any case, if you wish to use deletion in this manner there are only two ways: to get our policy changed, or to do it as office. It's a bad precedent. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Implement flagged revisions and you won't have to worry about this stuff anymore. And if the problem is with female BLPs, why was Tom Harrison messing with all those other edits? Tom, you and these other admins need to get on the same page about your plan for dealing with this issue. Once you are all on the same page with your plan, I suggest writing it down somewhere, perhaps where only admins can see it, as a guide for all admins to reference in the future. Cla68 (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Amorrow is a horrible problem. Please, unless you are familiar with the facts of the matter, stop pressuring Tom. He's doing exactly the right thing. If you have a problem with that, email me and I will explain. Let's not feed this problem. Every edit by Amorrow should be deleted. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If this editor was Amorrow and he has commited egregious infractions justifying forever removal of any of his edits no matter how benign, then sure. I'm not privy to what hes done, I was just merely stating that the edits I observed didn't justify the action that was taken. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 03:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I emailed you and you had nothing new to say, just that he's a very bad person (which I agree with) and that therefore we must get rid of all his contributions. First, I'd like to point out that Tom isn't getting rid of his contributions; he's just misattributing them to the next editor. And then there's the idea that we must do this for any edit, no matter what it is, which seems completely silly, and the perfect way to make this into a game. --NE2 03:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I don't see why you guys (admins) can't start writing down standard responses as guides to repeated issues, like Amorrow. I suggest that someone write a page on Amorrow with background and standard admin responses and call it WP:Amorow or something like that. If there are any details which need to be kept out of public view, then put those on separate sub-pages and admin delete them so that only admins can read them. Then, admins can put "WP:Amorow" in the log when they take admin action like Tom did, and if someone asks them about it, like someone did with Tom and got ignored, then the admin can just direct them to read that page. Not all of our admins are teenagers, some of you actually are in professional careers and should know better than to allow this haphazard, fly-by-seat-of-pants approach to adminning to continue when it isn't necessary. Standardize admin responses to repeated situations. Write them down as guidelines. Do yourselves some favors and upgrade your management performance of this website. Cla68 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

"if someone asks them about it, like someone did with Tom and got ignored" Nobody was ignored. At 14:31-14:33, raeky asked about a deletion. At 14:34 I replied to him - "Restored now. Please see the section above. Sorry for the inconvenience." Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It that's true, then I take that back with apologies. Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, is it true? Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's also

WP:RBI but I really would agree that some sort of plan should be discussed. Why not oversight instead? That would seem a much simpler option. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 05:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you guys decide to do is fine, just write it down somewhere so that your response will be the same every time and everyone will understand why you're doing it. Something like, "If you see that Amorrow has begun editing Wikipedia again, then A. Block the account, B. Request oversight over all the edits, C... and so on. Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Details about him can be found here, Amorrow has decided to e-mail me since I made my e-mail available in my user page. With his full name a simple google search brought that page up. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're going to willingly engage in email communications with that evil piece of shit? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you admins would get organized, this kind of stuff wouldn't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lovely thought, Cla- but given that the admins are also a semi-controlled anarchy composed of volunteers, like Wikipedia editors in general, "getting organized" can be problematic. We formerly had some pages regarding serious problem users, and consensus was to delete them under the umbrella of DNFT, if I recall correctly. I'm more than open to ideas regarding this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MassDev

Apparently the Massachusetts Redevelopment Authority has found a way to add their propaganda to our site. They go by the username

talk

) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that they've "screwed up some pages", but that's certainly a promotional account, possibly a prohibited role account, and definitely a username violation. They're also likely to fall afoul of the COI guidelines sooner or later. I'd suggest a calm warning rather than an aggressive one, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I gave them a level 2 warning for promotional criteria. I based the screw up on speculation, as I had only seen two pages. Thanks for the help.

talk

) 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that account is a pretty clear

username violation; it could probably be soft-blocked. MuZemike

02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would do that, but I can't. I'm behind you in that idea.

talk

) 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, no edits in six weeks. I think they may be done doing what they were doing anyway. Wknight94 ^talk 14:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

MassDev isn't "definitely a username violation". The big issues are with the conflict of interest, not with the string of characters "MassDev". (Another way of putting it: if the account had a different name, it would not fix the problem, so involving the username policy is unhelpful.) rspεεr (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Need to redirect or link to correct preexisting article

The Category function seems to be in need of improvement. Every List that I specify under Category is colored red, and jumping to that page reveals an article that has not yet been created, despite the fact that an identically-named article already exists, and can be easily reached by typing the name in the Search box. I would vastly prefer that when a Category is specified, the link takes you to the preexisting article. The following links are currently problematic in the article for Fattburger, which I created:

(1) List of smooth jazz performers
(2) List of funk musicians
(3) List of jazz fusion artists
(4) Jazz-funk

All of these links should not only take you to the preexisting article, but should be colored blue, not red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LAlawMedMBA (talk • contribs) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories are not intended to link to articles; rather they are a means of grouping articles on related topics. I have moved your four 'categories' to a 'See also' section in the Fattburger article and linked them to the respective articles, which I hope will satisfactorily meet your need. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• In an article:

  [[Category:Qwerty]] puts the article in the category Qwerty

  [[:Category:Qwerty]] is a link to the category Qwerty

• Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tintor2

Resolved

 – IP blocked for

evasion not to mention harassment. Another Plaxico moment. MuZemike

19:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

can you pls do something against this user? hes reverting my useful edits all the time. give him an asskick by banning him for example. thanks. 88.243.134.122 (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind

WP:CIVIL. Even if in a dispute with another editor, calling that editor "nigga" is unacceptable. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk}

17:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Wrong venue, and one shouldn't really call attention to oneself when one is evading a block by jumping IPs. Syrthiss (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Anybody want to take a shot at adding "Plaxico" to Wikipedia:Glossary#P? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• On it. Should I mention the origin or no? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The living namesake is still a defendant who has pled not guilty, and is in a world of hurt, beyond the (allegedly self-inflicted) hole in his leg. Steveozone (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • As such, I, personally, prefer the existing, and long-standing, metaphor of shooting onesself in the foot. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Making it possible to import edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia and Meta to Wikipedia

I'd like comment on my proposal to make it possible to import edits into the English Wikipedia database. Thanks. Graham87 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly Unfree Files

backlog

Could an admin please help here? Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's a big one. I hate working PUF. I covered July 3-7. Anything that wasn't deleted is probably ok, though I didn't go through the archiving motions for the discussions. Protonk (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• July 13,14,15 are done. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I plan to work on this more when I have some more free time. –
    T • C • L
    ) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Some remarks by Milomedes.

Wrong noticeboard. This is not a notice for general administrator attention. This is a Wikiquette incident involving communication between editors in a discussion, and a request for independent editors to comment. It can now be found

at the proper place for that. Uncle G (talk

) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible spammer

I've nominated this edit, from 202.145.15.5 (talk · contribs), for speedy deletion because there is no accompanying article page. However, the text of the comment has me a little worried, particularly the way in which a reader is directed to anontalk.com. Spam with exactly this wording (and numerous variations of wording, but all directing the reader to the same site) appears with annoying regularity on some other sites which permit anonymous contributions, and it is extremely persistent. I'm not sure what can be done (or even if anything should be done), but I thought it better to mention now before Wikipedia is flooded with this spam. Astronaut (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. See

WP:ANI#IPs -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

20:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Who then was a gentleman?

Resolved

 – IP blocked. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

another editor who has a habit on reverting useful edits aggressively. he's waiting for a punishment! 88.243.132.158 (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, spank me. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And we have a winner. IP blocked for evading the blocks put in place in the section above. And I protected the IP's favourite target as well for a few days. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can ping a Checkuser about the possibility of a rangeblock here on the /24 or narrower. MuZemike 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Tngah

I just blocked Taurusx5x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of Tngah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tngah/Archive and things like American Caucasian and Race relations in Argentina. Just posting for a review. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Per a motion at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

:

Having considered the request to lift the remaining restriction (remedy X) in the EK3 case, the Arbitration Committee decides that the request is denied, but that the indefinite nature of the restriction is altered so that the restriction will now expire one year after the enactment of this motion. This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 00:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Would appriciate a few eyes on a controversal discussion page

I would like it if a few non-involved admins could help watch and patrol for behavioral problems on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names? There's a few handful of editors that are really pushing limits, and while some of the discussion seems appropriate - if not politically charged - there are statements that are pushing the realm of personal attacks. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Would have appreciated this even more had you brought this to ANI when the attacks were incoming. Or when the bad block occurred. Sarah777 (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:WaterDrop Animations

Resolved

Could I get some advice or help on what to do with the author of WaterDrop Animations' hangon reason?? Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C) 04:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind...Plastikspork is handling it. Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C) 04:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Khukhrain

Was hoping to get a few more sets of eyes on this article. There seems to be some edit warring going on, mainly between User:Anoopkohli and User:Azeon. I'm not entirely sure what was going on, initially Azeon seemed to be mainly vandalizing, but seems to now be trying to make constructive edits. A look at both users shows that they're both new, Azeon's edits are only to Khukhrain and Anoopkohli's talk page, and the vast majority of Anoopkohli's edits are to Khukhrain. Azeon was never properly warned about his section blanking, and there's some brief conversation on User talk:Anoopkohli but I really am not sure what is going on, or if it even qualifies as something worthy of more attention. I'm also not sure of whether there's anything that can be done about it! Thanks! Frmatt (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Planning

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.

--Philippe

(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

Timestamp added to allow for automatic archival. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic Research Study Survey: Final Call

Thank you to the Wikipedia community for your participation so far in this ongoing research study, and for your response to our previous post on the Administrators' Noticeboard. We plan on keeping this survey open for one more week and would like to encourage anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to participate to take the survey described below.

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut, we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either voting or as a candidate.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CMUResearcher (talk • contribs) Timestamp added to allow for automatic archival. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Answers.com

Hello. Please excuse me if this has been brought up before or if I am bringing it up in the wrong place. Also please excuse me if I misunderstand the licenses Wikipedia uses. However, I was on this page about Hengry McKinnell and I noticed after the Answers.com article about the subject, there was also an exact copy of the Wikipedia article of the same name. I looked around and I could not find a link back to the original article on Wikipedia nor credit to the authors. Is this a problem or not?--

talk

) 23:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Answers.com Viriditas (talk

) 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Right at the bottom of the page on Answers.com (after all the other guff that no-one ever reads) is a credit and link back to the Wikipedia article. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh roger, sorry to bother you then. I just couldn't find it and I wanted to make sure.--

talk

) 23:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Announcement: Results of Checkuser/Oversight elections, August 2009

Motion: The Arbitration Committee, on reviewing the results of the

August 2009 Checkuser and Oversight elections

,

(a) appoints the following editors as checkusers, pending identification to the Wikimedia Foundation:

• J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  ) (already identified)

(b) apppoints the following editors as oversighters, pending identification to the Wikimedia Foundation:

• Nishkid64 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (current checkuser, already identified)
• Avraham (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (current checkuser, already identified)
• Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (current member of the Audit Subcommittee, already identified, to retain oversight permission following the conclusion of his term on that subcommittee)
• Keegan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  ) (already identified)
• Dweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mr.Z-man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (already identified)
• Hmwith (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Happy-melon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Wizardman
Abstaining: Risker (supervising arbitrator), Stephen Bain
Inactive: Vassyana

The Committee thanks the other candidates (

talk · contribs), SoWhy (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), Tiptoety (talk · contribs), and VirtualSteve (talk · contribs

)), those who applied but were not put forward as candidates, and the community in bringing this election process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee
Risker (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Shortcut creation

Resolved

 – Done.

247

13:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to create shortcut

talk

) 11:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Though I think there wouldn't have been an issue you doing it yourself?

247

13:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the name triggered off a red box stopping me from editing it! --

talk

) 13:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, must be one of those admin things where it didn't give me that box. Well it's sorted now, cheers.

247

13:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-free images on User:KAPITALIST88's page

Hopefully this is the right place to bring this up, I'm sorry if it isn't. I just notived that User:KAPITALIST88 is using three non-free images in user-boxes on his user page: File:GoogleChromeLogo.png, File:Microsoft Windows XP Logo.svg, and File:Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare.jpg. I was under the impression that this was aginst policy, but I don't think I have the authority to take things like that out of another user's page, and I don't know the policy or guide line where this is said. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 22:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not allowed (and they're faux userboxes, so they aren't coming from an external source). They have been removed and user notified. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we used to have a bot that removed non-free images displayed outside of articlespace? Protonk (talk) 22:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that might've been one of BetacommandBot's tasks... I previously raised the possibility of a database report on these at

WT:DBR. Black Kite

22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wasn't sure if there was a policy involved or not. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 22:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Very explicitly disallowed. NFCC #9. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Template DYK problem

Resolved

 – ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the home page of Wikipedia and noticed that the DYK section was blanked. I undid the last edit by the 'bot. [24] Somebody who is familiar with DYK should check this and fix whatever is wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The manual process is described here. Can an admin please do it soon, since the DYK people doesn't seem to be around? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've manually copied it over. Anyone know what the bot did wrong? Mikaey, Devil's advocate 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Reason is here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Per a motion at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

:

Having considered all the requests for amendment and requests for clarification submitted following the decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking, the Arbitration Committee decides as follows:

(1) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is topic-banned from editing or discussing "style and editing guidelines" (or similar wording) are modified by replacing these words with the words "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates";

(2) All remedies in the decision providing that a specified user is "prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline" are modified by replacing these words with the words "prohibited from reverting the linking or unlinking of dates";

(3) All editors whose restrictions are being narrowed are reminded to abide by all applicable policies and guidelines in their editing, so that further controversies such as the one that led to the arbitration case will not arise, and any disagreements concerning style guidelines can be addressed in a civil and efficient fashion;

(4) Any party who believes the Date delinking decision should be further amended may file a new request for amendment. To allow time to evaluate the effect of the amendments already made, editors are asked to wait at least 30 days after this motion is passed before submitting any further amendment requests.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 03:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

WP:Flag

Policy

Most wikiproject ice hockey (not all) has not been following the flag policy when regards to Infobox's and is completely out of order to make changes without making a request on village pump. So I have no clue what to do because they are countless articles that defy WP:Flag policy such as

Nikolai Zherdev and the list can go on. This needs to be fixed since most wikiproject hockey article don't follow policy. The WP:Flag link in the title will link you directly to which one is being broken.--Fire 55 (talk

) 06:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A couple things... first, it is a guideline, not a policy. Second, there are discussions ongoing at the talk page for the template you are complaining about: [[25]]. There is nothing here that requires the attention of an administrator, so I have no idea why you have brought this complaint here. Resolute 17:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. A guideline is not "something I can ignore as though it were never written". Guidelines and policies both exist for a reason, and there is not a lower threshold for ignoring guidelines than there is for ignoring policies. If the guideline exists, it exists for a reason, and insofar as something is in violation of the reason that a guideline exists, it violates the guideline and should not be undertaken.

WP:IAR and you can't violate a guideline with just a handwave and saying "its a guideline and not a policy". I have no idea if the articles in question have a valid reason to violate the guideline or not, but the justification of "its a guideline and not a policy" is never a valid reason to ignore said guideline. Follow it unless you can come up with a darned good reason as to why the guideline does not apply in any specific case. --Jayron32

01:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is you have articles like Wayne Gretzky which follows the policy and then you go to Steve Yzerman who is in the same situation in regards to the flags, but is contradictory to the rule. Wayne and Steve are US citizens but were born, raised, and represented Canada (and Canada Only). Both of them should only have a Canada flag, but Yzerman has an Amercian one too. Yes I know there has been many ideas on to fix this, but there has been NO CONSENSUS on any ideas. So until then all the articles should follow that guideline. This is most likely causing so much confusing to people who look at bios of hockey players here and that's why this needs to be changed. I'm fine with flags being given by what citizenship the person holds, but the fact is the hockey players bios DON'T FOLLOW ANY RULE GUIDELINE and you get this confusing mess. So until consensus is reached on how flags should be used, all hockey bios should use this guildline. THAT IS THE POINT WHICH I'M TRYING TO GET ACROSS.--Fire 55 (talk) 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad Image list request

Can someone allow File:No Israel.svg on Anti-Zionism? I think it may serve an illustrative purpose on that article. I also don't think non-pornographic images should be on that list, especially political ones. Icestryke (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a consensus on the article talk page to include it? I'd expect this to be a hot button issue so we need a consensus before we even look at this. Forgive me if i missed the discussion but I had a quick look at the talk page and couldn't see it.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed it from the list. That list is for images used for vandalism, which was not the reason the image was added to the list. — RockMFR 20:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And note that my removal of the image from the bad image list does not mean it should be used on the Anti-Zionism page, or anywhere else. Any usages of the image should be inline with content policies/guidelines and our user page guideline. — RockMFR 20:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Please return it to the list. The image is being used on userpages and is explicitly inflammatory and divisive, which is more or less completely forbidden in userspace. What ridiculous policy wanking to remove it from the list. → ROUX ₪ 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm there are a lot of images about wanking on that list. You want me to unlist one so we can use it to illustrate the point? (OK OK I'm joking)

Spartaz ^Humbug!

20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion might be relevant here, as it explains how the image got onto the blacklist to begin with. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions}

21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

While I'm unsure that we need a blanket prohibition on that image, I agree with the above consensus that it is inappropriate and divisive when placed on user pages. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on adding it per

WP:BRD which is why I didn't bring it up on the talk page, but I can't do that if it's on the list. I'll wait until consensus develops here first, and if the consensus here requires approval on the talk page, I'll bring it up then. Icestryke (talk

) 21:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Icestryke, If you put that image on the page without a consensus it's gouing to cause a shitstorm and at the very least will be reverted immediately. I am am going to be extremely clear - if you do this without discussing on the article talk page I will consider it a
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Farah Pahlavi article

Someone should take a look at the history of Farah Pahlavi article. The IP who has been making unconstructive changes to the article has now started referring to the editors as idiots. He/she keeps inserting false claims that Farah was a monarch, thus misinforming the readers of Wikipedia and harming Wikipedia's credibility.Surtsicna (talk) 07:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Could an admin please close the

WP:SFD discussions that need attention if anyone has the time and inclination. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've closed that one, but in general the SFD (and stub-sorting in general) processes are too opaque for me to make any sense of. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. I know what you mean. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rename of

Wikipedia:Edit war

There is a discussion at

WP:EW's talk page

concerning the name of the policy.

Currently it's called

Wikipedia:Edit war

. There are proposals to rename to

• Wikipedia:Edit warring, so the title more clearly refers to the behavior, or to
• Wikipedia:No edit warring, in line with other undesirable conduct (crossref: Please do not bite the newcomers and No original research).

A relatively minor rename, but wider input requested. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the AN/I Editnotice

I've started a discussion here about the editnotice for AN/I. Please comment there. If discussion starts up here anyway I may move it there or just turn the discussion there into a pointer here, thanks. Protonk (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Bump to keep this from being archived. Protonk (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page

It is my understanding that, per

WP:BLANKING and other policies/guidelines that WHOIS and SHAREDIP and other identifying templates are generally not to be removed from IP address talk pages. See the talk page history of User talk:94.192.38.247. This seems a silly think to war over; but I am fairly certain that these templates should NOT be being removed from IP talk pages; what is the general consensus on this? --Jayron32

01:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted. I could be wrong, but I believe that IP users are not allowed to remove templates, notices and the like. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, the user requested the right to vanish back in May. I think a checkuser is in order. Normally when someone RTVs, they don't get to come back as an IP or at all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone block 94.192.38.247, preferably someone who has not yet attempted to return his WHOIS template to his page? There's about half a dozen other editors who he is reverting on this issue. He's warring with several admins now, and if someone uninvolved can block him, it would keep things on the up-and-up. It has gone far past the point of disruption now. --Jayron32 02:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I am not an admin, just helping. Also, I have pushed this to AIV as well for a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Blocking the IP now. Enigma^msg 03:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Another admin removed it as "not vandalism" from AIV. So, it looks like things will have to go through here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it does say that:

Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates.

So yeah those templates can't be removed from IP talk pages.

^Gespräch

03:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Also the user has admitted that he has an account as User:Izzedine. A checkuser would be needed to confirm this, but it still doesn't give reason for the removal of templates. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been taken to

WP:WQA for posting a sock template on the IP talk page. Sheesh. Can someone shut this guy down please? - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 03:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See this, The IP reported this "harassment to Wikiquette Alerts.

^Gespräch

03:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I posted a link to this thread in the WQA thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's now a request for unblock at the IP's talk. Enigma^msg 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requests #1 and #2 declined. — Kralizec! (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a third unblock request up on the IP's talk page. Any takers? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • His latest tactic is to wikilawyer over what templates may or may not be removed. Someone else inform him that he was blocked for edit-warring. He reverted multiple editors nine times. Enigma^msg 06:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Talkpage has also been blocked for the duration. Now, it is officially resolved :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a disgraceful episode. WHOIS tags really aren't that important. There's a link to WHOIS at the bottom of every IP talk page and contributions page which cannot be removed. The tags are added randomly, are frequently hoaxed, wrong, or outdated, and here's the best bit: they don't tell you anything useful. I'm surprised there weren't blocks for edit warring or incivility here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer marked this thread as resolved because the IP is currently blocked. Because the case is far from resolved and Neutralhomer is actually one of those who have shown very bad judgement, I have undone this. Hans Adler 11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Did any of the brainiacs who reverted the IP ever bother to look at the history? I left an explanation on the IP's talk page, but here are some additional points:

• The whole thing started like a Kafka novel. The reason for adding a whois tag mentioning vandalism and giving BEANS instructions for harassing the IP was that an IP from the US left a helpme tag on this English IP's talk page.
• From
  WP:BLANKING
  : "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages [...] Important exceptions include declined unblock requests and confirmed sockpuppetry notices (while blocks are still in effect), or for anonymous editors, shared IP header templates. These notices and templates are necessary in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about blocks and sockpuppetry with other users." The first two exceptions obviously don't apply. The third is for shared IP addresses. This one is static and not shared. It functions essentially like an account.
• The IP was told to create an account. Presumably the idea was, create an account, and then you can control that account's talk page. That was obviously not what the IP wanted. The IP wanted to get rid of the BEANS instructions.
• When the IP explained that they already have an account, this was immediately interpreted as sock puppetry for no good reason at all. The BEANS problem was made even worse by adding a sockpuppet template connecting the user account with instructions for harassing the user in real life.

We need two things now:

• An immediate unblock with an apology to the IP.
• Clear statements by the entire tag team that edit-warred against the IP on the IP's own talk page that they now understand that they were wrong and why.

In case anyone wonders, it is a pure accident that I am currently still living in the same town as the IP, I am sure I have never met either the person or the editor, and I have no sympathy at all for the IP's political opinions. Hans Adler 11:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

After a closer look, the worst offender was Neutralhomer. I guess he got into the situation by jumping to conclusions about the situation, misunderstanding

WP:VAND#NOT

), but still:

• 4 unjustified reverts against a static IP user on the IP user's own talk page within 40 minutes. [26]
• Improper vandalism claim in an edit summary, abuse of Twinkle ... [27]
• ... immediately followed by a bogus vandalism warning [28]
• Vandalism accusation repeated after explanation why it is not vandalism. [29]
• Completely uncalled-for branding of the IP as a sock, exacerbating the problem caused by the whois template. [30]

I am also not impressed by Jayron32, who had prior interactions with the IP and now initiated this circus by first adding the whois template for no good reason and restoring it once. And of course there was the bad block by Enigmaman, clueless block reviews by Toddst and Kralizec!, and a really silly one by Jeremy alias Jéské Couriano, who even blocked the IP from editing his own talk page for "disruptive editing" (i.e. trying to make admins understand the situation). Hans Adler 11:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this IP address is "static" and assigned to a single location does not make it any less "shared" from our perspective. After all, people can change providers, networks can change their address assignments, people move away with others moving in to take their place, and a whole host of other things can happen that make "static" IPs and/or the people using them change. The whole idea behind the "shared IP" template verbiage was to remind editors and admins alike that IP addresses are not permanent, and the people behind IP addresses can and do change. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that makes no sense.

Template:SharedIPPublic

. It's obvious that we can't have one of possibly thousands of users on such an IP simply remove such a template. An editor who has been using a single static IP address for 6 months now is an entirely different matter. You can't extrapolate from an obvious case covered in a guideline to a dubious borderline case not covered in the guideline. A more reasonable extrapolation would be that removing justified warnings by admins is not OK. But it is, and there is no doubt about that.

Note also that there is a rationale given for why removing a shared IP header is not OK: "These notices and templates are necessary in order to keep a user from gaming the system. Such templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question, but to share important information about blocks and sockpuppetry with other users." There never was any relevant gaming and I can't imagine what it should be. There was a misunderstanding about RTV, and the editor initially tried to do a clean start when registering an account. IMO that's generally legitimate and

WP:CLEANSTART is not usually interpreted very strictly in such a situation. The editor even advertised the switch. [31]

In any case it's hard to see what gaming the header is supposed to prevent. If you try to argue that it's about advertising sockpuppetry information you again get into dubious territory, although I admit that a warning about being more careful to log in consistently would have been appropriate. Only two edits on 22 May (first logged in, then logged out) seems to require an explanation.

I would understand insisting on a link from the IP to the account. But insisting on a useless whois template is simply wrong. Hans Adler 13:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The IP knew of our policies regarded edit-warring and chose to ignore them. If you look at his comments on his talk, those alone warranted a block. I'm surprised anyone would advocate for an unblock when the IP was quite clearly being intentionally disruptive (unless you consider bad faith accusations and name calling appropriate editing, of course). Even if you're right that the WHOIS isn't necessary, it doesn't excuse the IP's egregious behaviour last night. Enigma^msg 14:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking. A bunch of people edit warred against a static IP user in order to keep a completely useless template on the user's talk page. There was no reason why he couldn't remove the template per

WP:BLANKING

. The user communicated in a meaningful way. None of his opponents did this until very, very late. (At this stage Neutralhomer had already managed to break 3RR within 40 minutes.) It's perfectly natural to lose patience when one is targeted in this way. Just so you can't deny that there was no meaningful communication, here is the list of edit summaries that I have already put on his talk page (sorry for the redundancy, but this incident shows that admins don't even do the most elementary research before coming to conclusions):

• "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247. (TW)"
• "Rmv, sorry, but since IP addresses are dynamic, they don't 'retire.'" (to a static IP)
• "Reverted edits by 94.192.38.247 (talk) to last version by Dayewalker"
• "return WHOIS info."
• "hey."
• "Reverted 3 edits by 94.192.38.247; This is not your account, you are an IP user.. (TW)"
• "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247; This is not your page, you are an IP. Get an account, then you can claim it is yours.. (TW)"
• "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247 identified as vandalism to last revision by Neutralhomer. (TW)"
• "Reverted 1 edit by 94.192.38.247; Then user your regular account, stop vandalizing this page. (TW)"

It may be necessary to get rid of this user for unrelated reasons. But this is not a convincing way to manufacture a pretext. The tag team was too obviously wrong. You quoted this edit summary as one reason for blocking:

I do have an account and this is my static IP and there is no reason for this insistant interference here. I have done nothing wrong, the next time somebody harasses me I will report it

Well, I happen to agree with the IP 100% in this point. This was a case of totally pointless harassment by a mob of clueless editors including several admins. This particular edit summary doesn't even make a bad faith assumption, which I could have understood in the situation. (To be clear, it's obvious to me that this was caused by misunderstandings, jumping to conclusions and in some cases incompetence, I see no objective reason to assume bad faith.)

If you felt you had to block this user because of the extreme technical 3RR violation, then you should at least have blocked Neutralhomer as well. He violated 3RR against the owner of the page in just 40 minutes and even added a bogus vandalism warning and a sockpuppet template when he didn't get his way. And all members of the tag team should have received a warning. Hans Adler 14:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite absurd to call someone putting a template on your page "harassment". That's what passes for harassment these days? I think a block was appropriate. If you want to go ahead and ask for more blocks, that's your prerogative. Enigma^msg 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT forbids me to put a custom made template on your talk page that would say: "Attention! This page belongs to a user account of the English Wikipedia. In cases of vandalism from this account efforts should be made to find out the user's IP address so that the abuse can be reported to the user's internet provider." Hans Adler

15:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler here. This is a screwup, and we owe the editor an apology. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm washing my hands of this. If someone wants to unblock, they have no objection from me. Since apparently the IP's behaviour is viewed as appropriate in this case, feel free. I responded to a report about edit-warring by blocking the principal party. My continued involvement was due to the snarky comments by the IP. I did not edit war with the IP because I don't feel the WHOIS is definitively necessary. No, I do not think blocking someone for reverting nine times makes me an abusive admin or part of a vicious clan, but I suppose I can't stop you from thinking so. Enigma^msg 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with zzuuzz and Hans Alder. Everyone involved in that talk page dustup, including Neutralhomer and several admins who I've come to usually respect, reacted to escalate things rather than attempt to resolve anything. That talk page had managed to be blank for a couple of months without detroying the wiki, but an unrelated trouble-making IP comes along and suddenly it's VITAL that a completely useless template stay. Just because you all have access to a rollback button, and some of you have access to a block button, doesn't mean that those are the optimal ways to deal with a situation.

If I understand correctly, the block was anon-only, so the editor is still free to use his named account. But the underlying mindset is worrying. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah...the only reason I've not acted boldly and unblocked is that, given the underlying mindset, I don't want to start (or be accused of starting) a wheel war. I myself did one of the reverts before I realized what was going on. The worst the guy has done is neglect to log in sometimes; BFD. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you should reprimand yourself and issue an apology. Enigma^msg 15:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done so, and I've unblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if you feel that {{

wikilawyering, this is just the latest in a string of disruptive incidents including threats ([32]), harassment ([33], [34], [35], [36]) and legal threats ([37]). After thoroughly examining this situation, the only thing that surprises me is that Enigmaman did not issue a longer block for this persistently disruptive editor. — Kralizec! (talk

) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at the time of the change referenced WP:VPP/Archive 42#Wikipedia:User page and IP's, among others. You took part in that discussion, and after reading it I guess you misjudged the consensus or misremember it. There were some pretty clear statements such as "I do not think an IP should be allowed to remove warnings unless they are static and at the same time not shared" (my italics for exactly our situation) or "Can they remove pretty much anything else (namely thinking of unblock templates and Shared/School/OMGIt'sAGovernmentIP headers)? No. Those are important for us and them - shared IPs get shorter blocks, schools are treated differently in the same way, and Government IP's generally get shorter blocks as well as an "oh f***" report to the WMF." (which uses a rationale that clearly doesn't apply here). Kim Bruning even argued for allowing the deletion of shared IP headers, but of course nobody else agreed. Hans Adler 16:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

To prevent situations like this in the future, should we create a new template for static IPs? Perhaps something like {{

WP:USER so that "shared IP header templates" is explicitly linked to Category:Shared IP header templates. However this change still will not prevent confusion from reoccurring with the {{whois}} template. Personally, I only use {{whois}} for the 1% of IPs that do not fit any of the more-specific templates available at Category:Shared IP header templates ... after all, as others have already noted, the template offers nothing you cannot get just by clicking the "whois" link at the bottom of ever IP's talk page. — Kralizec! (talk

) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to prevent repetition. I believe similar situations happened quite often a year ago or so. I am not sure about the best method, and I am not entirely sure what you are proposing. Should the new staticIP template be used instead of the whois template and added to

WP:BLANKING, like the one about removing warnings that is already there. Hans Adler

22:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I did not intend for this to get blown up to this proportion. As Hans Adler has stated above, I am not particularly proud of how this turned out. I came asking for the consensus on how WHOIS templates are handled; the fact that this blew way out of proportion is not something I am particularly proud of. I think that Hans is entirely right on this, had I (and others) thought clearer about this, and sought to de-escalate rather than escalate the situation, it likely would not have ended up this way. I can only say that my intention in starting this thread was to find out what the opinion was on the WHOIS-type templates; my intention was to seek opinions not encourage action. Yes, I screwed up after this, and my advocation of a block was clearly out of line here. I apologize to everyone involved for wasting our time with this, and especially to the now blocked IP address. --Jayron32 16:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

William Golding

A news story about a 15 year old girl is here:

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/aug/16/william-golding-attempted-rape

and some extra eyes on the article would seem a good idea. (nb: she was 15 in about 1929)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Golding has been dead 16 years now; the other people involved are all most likely also. For perspective, he was 18 at the time, not that it is an excuse, and from the currently available material, the matter appears somewhat equivocal. The Guardian article is third hand at best, based on a Sunday Times article [38], in turn based on excerpts from an actual book (originally written as a private memoir not intended for publication), which has not yet been published. An excerpt from it will be published later this month, and there are sure to be other discussions of it at that time. As Jack says, care will be needed in dealing with this sort of sourcing. DGG (talk ) 23:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the second link. This incident was removed by [User:Deor|Deor]] w/"please wait until any new biographical information can be properly sourced from the book, not from random journalists" which seems the best approach for the moment; however, the material is back without an citation ATM. The book will, no doubt, offer a lot of material for the bio and the articles on his work; I'm looking forward to is. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

User posting others' passwords??

Resolved

 – User indef blocked -- œ^™ 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what to make of this.. User:Naoy5/IME 5-11-09.. Might not be what it appears to be but it does look like this user is posting the passwords of other users (or his alternate accounts?) on his userpage. -- œ^™ 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried logging in as the first user and the password was wrong... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like either a game, or using Wikipedia as a webhost. Check out the user's contribs for some.. weird activity. → ROUX ₪ 22:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't make any sense of it, but it does seem to be a case of them trying to use us as a free webhost. Strange. Shereth 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep--and a grand total of zero contributions to article space since s/he arrived in October 2008. I'm about to send him packing.

96

22:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of Image placeholders

What is the policy on this? I've read Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders which states there exists strong objections to their use. From what I gather, there was no consensus to either expand their usage, or remove such images.

Yet I've come across Justin Fashanu - an article on a deceased footballer with one of these images (which was added after said discussion). I removed it, citing the centralized discussion linked from the placeholder image itself. I also noted that as the subject was deceased, such a placeholder would discourage the upload of a suitable non-free image. Each time I have removed the placeholder, I have been reverted by User:Benjiboi who has made comments on my talk page.

He states that removing such placeholders is prohibited as there is no consensus, unless the subject died "photography was widely available", which I'm taking to read as pre-20th century. Note that he continues to add such placeholders on article on which there are none.[39][40]

What is the policy? Is anyone driving this? How do you we go forward from this?

Swungnewly (talk

) 23:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is policy. You might consult the football wikiproject to see whether a local consensus for or against their use within articles of that project's scope exists, giving Benjiboy the chance to contribute to such a discussion as well. Personally, I find those placeholders to be ridiculously awful, and evidently have been fortunate that when I have removed them, nobody's seen fit to dispute it. Resolute 23:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Especially as one could argue, since Fashanu is deceased, that a non-free image could technically pass

WP:NFCC. Black Kite

23:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#Massive AWB use to remove image placeholders was pretty recent; many users there seemed to refer to a standing agreement that such placeholders would be neither added nor removed in large numbers. I wouldn't call the thread conclusive in all such matters, but it might be good reading. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the resolution of the Gay Times cover could be reduced. Non-free use images should be at the lowest resolution possible without removing information. More than a 1000 pixels in one dimension is almost always excessive.

talk

) 10:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. It would have been nice to be notified on this thread calling me out. Prior to seeing this thread I have already added an image to
  -- Banjeboi
  23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Resolved

Can we get some more eyes on this page? It's already semi-protected, but with the news/speculation that he might sign with the Vikings today, some editors are jumping the gun slightly about him already being a member of the team. I've already reverted twice and I'd rather not do it a third time (and then warn myself about 3RR) and I'm not quite sure if it's worthy of full protection at this point, but I'll let others decide. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just did my third revert, so I guess I'm done for the day with this one. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I full protected the page for 4 hours, which hopefully should give enough time for an official announcement to hit and be sourced. Most of the edits today appeared to be 'HAY HE SIGNED' and reversions. Syrthiss (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be the guy who brings this up, but looks like it's official.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Drama regarding Glenn Beck's WP article

I found a Reddit submission pointing out what may or may not be crap-tons of bias on

ZS

10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap, that's a mess. Following through some of the links there leads to a fairly clear indictment of at least one editor as an obvious POV Pusher, and the article's page history and talk page show that it's true, the editor is engaged in keeping the article free of anything which makes Beck look less than perfect. Admins definitely need to step in there, and it will probably require a topic ban to get eh process of repair started. ThuranX (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Left a note at

WP:BLPN to discuss here, though probably should be the other way around.  Skomorokh 

16:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article continues to be a problem, from the editor discussed at the reddit link primarily. Seems there is absolutely nothing Beck could do wrong, and thus nothing 'wrong' can be put on the page. It's a huge POV shove. ThuranX (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Considering that Beck recently declared that President Obama has a deep seated hatred of White people, and that he made this declaration on the network that hosts his show, an objective view would be that the article should have a section which details the controversies that trail from much of Beck's bloviating. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beck article is free of mention of several incidents which have received widespread and significant coverage in reliable sources, because one editor says they are "newsworthy, but not noteworthy," such as calling President Obama racist, or crying on the air. The result is a puff-piece which is unencyclopedic in its omissions of controversy. Edison (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The article continues to suffer from all out obstructionist refusal to incorporate any criticism from an editor with a serious non-encyclopedia-oriented reason to keep Beck's article free from criticism. ThuranX (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The obstruction continues, with the same editors refusing to budge on things. Including one controversial comment is undue weight, including a broad section on his history is prejudicial and unsupportable by sources, because any sources brought aren't WP:RS enough to pass his inspections. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

There are problems, but the situation seem to have improved somewhat, and it might be best to see how things proceed. I see one editor as the primary problem over there, which I concluded after reading the talk page and going through diffs for a few hours (it takes that long, unfortunately). I've written up some detailed evidence which I'll post here at WP:AN if things spin even slightly out of control again, the purpose of which would be to seek some sort of community intervention or sanction. But let's see how things go in the immediate future since there are a lot more eyes on the article now. What happened the past few weeks though has been incredibly problematic. I'll try to check in over there, but if that kind of thing flares up again feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

We've reached 3,000,000 articles!

Congratulations, Wikipedia! The 3,000,000th article was just created, it is Beate Eriksen. It took a little over 8 years, but hey, we got it! (X! · talk)  · @212  ·  04:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And in case that one is deleted, Pray For Me (song) is the 3,000,001st, and Portuguese Fireplace is the 3,000,002nd. (X! · talk)  · @214  ·  04:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I presented the user with a barnstar for the 3,000,000th article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And the 3,000,001st article is a redirect. I sense a trend here. -- llywrch (talk) 05:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if the Admins on the English Wikipedia can do this or not, but someone should update the main portal at http://wikipedia.org/ to say "3,000,000+" articles. mnmazur  voicemail 

• I should send it to AfD for the lulz. Protonk (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The Guardian really does get its licks in, though. Sigh. Protonk (talk) 07:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• I actually think I've seen her once, in Oslo. What are the odds? Like 1/3,000,000... decltype (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what really there is to celebrate - we have a serious problem of quantity over quality. It's like saying "great, I've managed to poo in every room in the house". --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh live a little. It's ok to revel in this. Protonk (talk) 07:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Hahahaha ! Viridae^Talk 07:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• \0/ —
   ? 
  09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• What kind of house do you have?! :)
   GARDEN 
  09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Does the 3,000,000 include redirects? Because it seems a little bit of a cheat to claim it as an achievement if it does. Sort of like getting in a passing taxi for the last few miles of a marathon. Black Kite 10:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• My kind of marathon running. :) All the better if I have a laptop with me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Nope, {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} doesn't include redirects. -- Luk ^talk 10:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• So, what percentage are any good? Jack Merridew 11:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Probably

  no worse than The Guardian. Tom Harrison ^Talk

  11:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  Sold. Terima kasih, Jack Merridew 13:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Damn, I missed it by a few hours. I don't have the dif right now, but I called August 16th back in June, IIRC. --Jayron32 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiportal redirect needed

Resolved

 – Article space should not be used for redirects to other namespaces. Seddσn 11:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to create a redirect at Wikiportal for Wikipedia:Portal. I was told it was protected, so I had to put in a request here.

Since WikiProjects are called WikiProjects, and not Wikipedia:Projects, some people might get confused. In fact, everything from Wikipedia to Wiktionary has the Wiki/Wik in front of it. Wikimedia, wiki.. whatever. So most would assume that the portals would be called Wikiportals or WikiPortals. Thus redirects are necessary, to send people to the proper place. Dream Focus 23:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Redirects from the mainspace to Wikipedia space are very rarely maintained. Did you mean

Wikipedia:Wikiportal?  Skomorokh 

00:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Maintained? You just put it there and ignore it. Nothing to maintain at all. When I use the search to look for Wikiportal, I got no results. If someone wants to learn what a Wikiportal is, they should be able to enter it into the search thing, and find it right away. Dream Focus 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. Also, no one wnats to know what a "wikiportal" is, since they are called "portals". Have a nice day! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone clicks Random article, we wouldn't really want them getting directed to a portal. They want a random article, not something in another namespace. As for Skomorokh's use of "maintain", see its definition in Wiktionary. It can mean "preserve" as well as "keep up". hmwitht 04:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For example, the motto of Hofstra University is Je maintiendrai which literally means "I will maintain" and more accurately translates as "I stand steadfast". So in this context, to "maintain" a redirect would be allowing it to stay. @harej 05:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mak

Resolved

 – article deleted --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This "article" is likely a vanity/class mate fun article (about a non-notable person) and should probably be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged it for speedy deletion (A7). Deor (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the article. In the future, please use a

proposed deletion tag to nominate articles for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk

) 15:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Resolved

 – backlog cleared. Enigma^msg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not nearly as entertaining as admonishing editors on the noticeboards, but I would appreciate it if another administrator could take a crack at the backlog. I have been the only admin handling requests there recently. Aside from general fatigue on my part, I understand that people don't like it when one administrator "takes over" a page. Enigma^msg 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to help out, but am not terribly familiar with the area. Is there any guide to best practices (lengths of protection, when to block vs protect and so on) or prevailing conventions, along the lines of

WP:FIELD around?  Skomorokh 

17:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not aware of any such essay. I learned from observing other administrators at work and how they applied the protection policy. If you have any specific questions, I could try to help there. Enigma^msg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Geez, Enigmaman! You only get stuck with all the work because every time I go to check it out, you have already processed all the requests. If you did not work so blazingly fast, there would be something left for the rest of us to do! — Kralizec! (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All cleared now. Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Enigma, I don't know if you have gotten crap from other admins for "taking over" the board, but as far as I'm concerned, if you are the only admin working the board, go right ahead and do 'em all.

Tan | 39

20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't personally, but I saw such a concern on a certain RfB. Maybe it isn't shared by many. Enigma^msg 22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I'm thinking of the RfB you are thinking of, that was mainly because the user had been viewed as sort of a take-charge editor. He had written essays about the page, made tons of proposals, made hundreds of comments in discussions about it... Additionally, it's also Wikipedia's most drama-filled area, unlike RfPP. (X! · talk)  · @112  ·  01:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. That allays my concerns. Yeah, it's the same RfB. Enigma^msg 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was in the same boat for a while. When RFPP wears you out, just let it be for a bit until some other schmuck another kind admin shoulders the load for a bit. BTW I'll take care of the current crop of requests. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To respond (somewhat tangentially) to Skomorokh's question, it's not so much a guide as an admin's wry and bitter lament, but it might be worthwhile to read Angela's old essay m:The Wrong Version. It's been a long time since I protected anything, but being prepared in advance for the inevitable accusations is, I suspect, still a good idea. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and less fun (but perhaps more useful) is a page I'm surprised wasn't suggested--Wikipedia:Protection policy. I almost always reviewed it if I was protecting something, just to make sure I had my facts straight. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the policy page. I don't think that's what he was asking for. Enigma^msg 03:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD

There are currently 201 pages at

be kind to newcomers

15:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Down to 35 pages, 122 images.  Skomorokh  16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Back up to 176. Fun. Enigma^msg 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikifan12345 mentorship

This post is to inform the community that I have begun mentoring Wikifan12345 as was suggested in a recent ANI. Any community member is welcome to ask questions regarding this mentorship here or at my talk page. --

talk

) 00:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does your mentorship imply? Consensus in that ANI thread was for a topic ban on Israel related articles, for the remainder of 2009. I'm sure Wikifan agrees to being mentored so as to avoid the topic ban, but I don't think there was any consensus for that. All I see on Wikifan's talk page is him trying to wikilaywer his way out of the topic ban, after plainly ignoring it for the past few weeks. If your mentorship implies seeing to it that he follows the ban, then that's fine, but that's clearly not what Wikifan intended.--Atlan (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My mentorship implies that I am mentoring Wikifan, nothing more. I cannot speak to Wikifan's intentions in entering mentorship. There was a misunderstanding with regards to the topic ban, since the discussion was automatically archived before being reviewed and closed. I am counseling Wikifan to follow the community's consensus, but I am unable to enforce the topic ban as I am not an admin. I hope that I've adequately addressed your concerns; if not, please let me know. --

talk

) 10:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me then, thanks.--Atlan (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the mentorship can help this user learn to work better with others, but his excuses that there was a misunderstanding or that the discussion "went stale" are without merit. The topic ban garnered consensus, and it was officially logged at

WP:AE to deal with? Tarc (talk

) 12:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was logged less than a day ago. Even though I find the "discussion going stale before resolution" excuse quite unconvincing, let's enforce the ban from that moment on.--Atlan (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Captcha help isn't helpful

The instructions given above the captcha are (my emphasis): "To help protect against automated spam, please enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):". The box contains two words. However, you have to type them in as one word (i.e. without a space separating them). This is very non-obvious, and caused me to fail the captcha twice. Could an admin please expand either the text above the captcha or the help page to explain this? HenryAyoola (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's weird, I always entered it as 2 words... Did something change? (I can't seem to be able to trigger the captcha today, grrr). -- Luk ^talk 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked, it doesn't work. I'm unsure exactly how to change the wording (possibly switch to say "enter the word" instead?), but I'm fairly certain all the pages that would need to be changed are on this list. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Enter the words without any spaces", or "Enter the words, removing any spaces", maybe? I'm not sure what the exact format of the CAPTCHA is, though. Would that be any more clear? --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 21:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that should be fine. I'll go make the change on the pages now. Also, if you need to take a look at one of the CAPTCHAs, just log out and try to create an account, or add an external link to an article while logged out. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. HenryAyoola (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Enter the letters" might be less verbose, which is probably good unless we want to make it very clear those are supposed to be words (which we might, I dunno). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

"Words" would probably be important; a human would be able to interpret an ambiguous letter based on what fits. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit request backlog

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests needs to be cleared out by a few admins. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed header of Special:NewFiles

Per recent addition to commons:Special:NewFiles, I decided to make similar addition here. Though as the link added links to a tool I've created, I notify you here so you know. The relevant interface message is MediaWiki:Newimages-summary _→AzaToth 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"A Database Error Occurred". :) Amalthea 21:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Toolserver is at the moment doing hardware maintenance on just the s1 db replica, so sadly en-wp is not available this minute :( (sadly there isn't an machine-readable way to indicate server-availability on toolserver yet. _→AzaToth 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Report Members

Resolved

 – IP warned level 1 Mfield (Oi!) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

124.217.76.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) deleted an entire section off of BIOS. Please respond to me on my talk page when someone reads this message, and then take appropriate action. Btilm (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Without any prior history the proper course of action is to issue them a level 1 warning which you can do. I have done it for you this time. If the action is repeated then the warning can be escalated. Once adequate warnings have been issued up to a final warning the IP could be reported to

WP:AIV but until that point, no further admin action is necessary. Mfield (Oi!

) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

General improvements to the header at

WP:SPI

Administrators,

I've taken the liberty to try to make some improvements at

WT:SPI if anybody wants to discuss any further changes or make other suggestions. Anyone is also free to make any edits they seem fit on my sandbox page if desired. Regards, MuZemike

23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Zaxby

This user is intentionally editing disruptively.[41][42] Why doesn't someone block the account?—SpaceFlight89 02:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See ANI thread. Deor (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

3 day old thread...lack of admins willing to block? Does this belong to

WP:AIV?—SpaceFlight89

05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two examples could be regarded as not vandalism; someone defaces a WP page and Zaxby notes the edit as "nonsense" / an ip address is noted as being compromised, which Zaxby notes is not possible since anon addresses have no owner. Not saying that Zaxby may not be a problem, but those diffs do not show bad intentions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Zaxby's editing history shows they've been reverting people for frivolous reasons,

Wikipedia:Introduction for deletion instead of reverting the bad edits, other than that they are just pissing around.—SpaceFlight89

13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

See also the block log: [44] - indef blocked on 15 Aug, but reversed by the same admin after realising there was no final warning. Certainly the old edits linked from here look problematic as a pattern, but unless there are recent problems (post 15 Aug - and I don't see any), he should get a chance. Rd232 ^talk 21:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I missed the link to an SPI issue - possible sock of

WP:ANI#User:Zaxby again, now possible sockpuppetry. That needs looking into - can somebody file an SPI? Rd232 ^talk

22:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Post 15 Aug the user has stepped down from blatant vandalism to biting newcomers and reverting edits.

• See [45], SridharRatnakumar (now NeuroBells123) had not made any personal attack, still the level 4 warning and harsh comments.
• Reverting new users for not adding a "source", and sometimes the reverts are outright wrong[46][47]. Removal of valid AIV report with a wise*** edit summary [48] (note that the IP was a spambot, and was correctly reported as "a spambot or compromised account"). Its hard to assume good faith with edits such as this, specially when the user had been vandalizing earlier. —SpaceFlight89 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Another bad revert (IP he reverted was correcting previous birthdate vandalism). Zaxby was mainly devoted to creating his hoax/fantasty user page (which I MfD'd

WP:COMPETENCE grounds if nothing else? Deor (talk

) 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another reversion of one of his incomprehensible edits today. He's also just deleted a bit of stern advice I left on his talk page, labeling it vandalism and dropping a {{

uw-tempabuse3}} on my talk page. Deor (talk

) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh?—SpaceFlight89 05:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SInce no one bothered to notify him of this thread, or that he was being watched for his problematic edits, I have done so. Please be certain to notify editors when they are being talked about here. --Jayron32 05:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I warned this user a day or two ago about placing bad reports on

AIV, as I'd seen at least 2 reports from them that weren't AIV material in the past few days. They simply removed the warning. Edits like this don't give me too much confidence that they've reformed. Killiondude (talk

) 06:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This user has been trouble for weeks. I think there's more than enough evidence to show a sockpuppet of multiple previously blocked accounts (so he's block evading), he's used false edit summaries in attempts to make subtle changes to articles (so he's lying to other editors) as well as hide vandalism (so he's a vandal), he's added hoaxes about himself to articles (so more lying), he's insisted on calling people who warn him names (so he's uncivil), and then he pretends that everything's fine and dandy and he should be allowed to continue because he's somehow the best recent edits watcher (so he's delusional).

I really don't know what more could possibly be needed for something to be done about this user and it's frustrating to sit here and watch him continue to not only accuse people of things, but to accuse them and attempt to reprimand people for doing the exact same things he's been accused of, as if he's suddenly made up for all his past transgressions! The first time I reported him to AN/I, an admin said his edits at that point (this was before he started attempting to greet people/revert vandalism) alone were cause enough for a block but that he had not yet received a final level warning so the block could not be used at that point. So with these new elements, I think he's not well above and beyond the line of something needing to be done. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 06:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to take this to SPI to attempt to get something done? This user continues to show zero interest in listening to others or for actually improving Wikipedia. He continues to add unreferenced information to Wikipedia while RC Patroling to remove unreferenced information from other users within minutes. This kid lives in a fantasy world where he thinks he's doing great things as a free patriotic American and continues his other fantasy life, as a NASCAR driver. There is nothing good coming from this user and not the slightest sign that he cares to change that. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for more input

Resolved

Please see the discussion at the List of honorific titles in popular music AFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Closed it as Keep. The arguements were going around in circles, it was 11 days open, and there were more than enough comments to parse consensus. See my closing comments for more details. --Jayron32 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

For the duration of this case, Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from articles related to Corrib Gas, broadly defined. Any uninvolved administrator may issue blocks up to 24 hours in duration for violations of this injunction. Attempts to game the injunction may also be taken into consideration.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

User: Subhamrony

Resolved

Subhamrony (talk · contribs) has been uploading a number of images with no source information, no copyright information, no licensing information—no information at all, in fact (see his/her User talk:Subhamrony for the string of deletion notifications). Should the user be blocked until s/he shows a willingness, and ability, to abide by our image policies? There may be a language problem involved here, but the user is certainly wasting a lot of the time of the editors who have to clean up after him or her. Deor (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Left a message, deleted a lot of the more obvious copyvios and rolled back some edits. If he carries on doing this, a block will be forthcoming. Black Kite 13:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Reports Total Revamp

Hi All,

  bsmithme 

22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

The rollback feature is used to quickly revert vandalism. Am I allowed to use it to revert blanking a section?  Btilm  00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Depends if the blanking was vandalism or not. What's the example? Protonk (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not remember...it was just deleting a section. They did not put anything in place of the section.  Btilm  00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember when I was using a pc and had access to huggle, I used the built in edit summary. It was something like "reverting unexplained removal of content". I don't know if something like that exists for twinkle or the rest of the anti-vandalism alphabet soup. I would just leave an edit summary to be safe. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

twinkle

Is there another way to warn a user using twinkle than having to go to their user page?  Btilm  00:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't the normal install of twinkle have links for that on the "history" page? I know it had like a bunch of links on there, so I installed a different package that removed them. Also, general questions about twinkle and rollback are best posed to the help desk or the village pump. Or even better, check out the documentation at
  WP:TWINKLE. Protonk (talk
  ) 00:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

vandalism

When is blanking considered vandalism?  Btilm  02:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That depends on what is being deleted. If the article is a

WP:VAND#NOT may be informative. — Kralizec! (talk

) 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My approach is that if an IP editor blanks a section that isn't bogus and doesn't use an edit summary, I feel entitled to use rollback -- but if there is the slightest doubt about any of this, I don't. Looie496 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions/advice please

Thread moved to User talk:Jimbo Wales.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I've been working on WP:Paid , regarding paid editing issues, for a bit now and there is indeed some sharp disagreements which is likely expected. collapsed as we seem to be making progress. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. During the recent RfC on the issue Jimmy Wales stated something to the effect that Using administrator tools or participating in policy discussions for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. It was stated with other ideas as well but this one in particular, I feel, should be backed up in actual policy or otherwise clarified. 1. Is this a policy if Jimmy simply states it is, if so do we have a policy that confirms that? 2. Wouldn't other policies on admin behaviours simply trump this? That is, theoretically, there may be some example of an admin being paid by the foundation or some other "weird" example so just like most other issues we look if an admin is actually doing something wrong verses something we morally find objectionable? 3. Is there a better way to phrase this or should it just be removed altogether? Any help appreciated. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 1. We would have a policy which confirms that if an editor didn't hadn't removed it.[49] 2. Every rule can be ignored if it aids the project. We don't need to make a separate IAR clause in every policy. 3. The wording you have above seems succinct and clear. 4. There is a concern that editors who may have engaged in paid editing are editing the policy without disclosing their conflict of interest. 5. Only a few cases of cases clear paid editing have come to light. If anyone knows of administrative actions that have been made in the past, or AN/ANI threads about them, that information would be helpful.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC) I agree with Will that it would be good to add the sentence, to remove doubt. I think from various discussions at the time the last instance of paid editing became prominent, it was clear that this is policy with extremely strong support from the community. If I were being supported by a foundation, to exercise admin functions in a neutral manner, I would presumably ask for a community OK here first, to make sure the project had their support. I think any prudent admin would, and it needn't be written down. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid Will is also an interested party and it may be helpful for them to step back a bit so we get some uninvolved opinions. Also that page is not a proposed policy but a summation of current status quo. DGG, I sort of agree but feel we do need to be more clear. Based on your comments it seems: Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden as evidenced by ___(what wording here is accurate?)___; any Wikipedia sanctioned use of admin tools for compensation should seek community approval at __(WP:AN?)___. Does this seem accurate and can you help fill in the blanks? Personally I'm not terribly bothered if it's policy or not but if it is we should be able to explain why it is. -- Banjeboi 00:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC) If you really need "evidence" then just cite Jimbo's statement. Though he's renounced the use of the block button, there are other admins who would do it for him.   Will Beback  talk  01:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Again, your opinion is painfully clear, if I had wanted to hear it yet again I could have simply posted on the talkpage; please take this opportunity to allow others who are not involved to offer some constructive help. If we insert Wales' statement then we also inject dissenting opinions from that same statement section dragging the whole spirit of it away. Let's not degrade progress shall we? Perhaps there is some actual policy that states anything Wales states as policy is such, perhaps there is no such thing. No reason to suppress other views on the matter, right? -- Banjeboi 01:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I'm eager to get constructive help on this matter. The editing of the policy page itself has involved lots of reverting and not much consensus. If the slow-speed edit war continues the matter will have to go to dispute resolution. This is obivously somewhat hypothetical pending someone getting caught taking pay for adminsitrative tasks or editing policy articles. But a clear statement from Wales, supported by admins, is strong evidence of a policy. I'll repeat my request above: if anyone has knowledge of any blocks, desysopings, or even just AN/ANI threads concerning actual instances of paid editing, that would help.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Again that "clear" statement is only cleer against advocacy which is always prohibited - paid or not - and admins disagreed with Wales on aspects of the statement as well. Hence the request for uninvolved folks to offer opinions and advice, please vector your comments to the talkpage so others may offer some insight. If you seek past ANI/AN threads, etc then you can utilize the search function for those. -- Banjeboi 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC) The fact that there is a "slow-speed edit war" shows that there is no consensus on the matter. Some Wikipedians believe that editting for pay, no matter what the terms, should be grounds for banning without exception. Others, like me, believe that there are conditions where being paid to edit are permissible. I suggest that no policy be enforced until the dust has settled -- unless you enjoy making people angry for no good reason. -- llywrch (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC) There are only a few editors active on that page, so I think the lack of consensus reflects the views of those individuals more than the community. There is a paradox here. Benjiboi is saying that there is no policy in this because it's never been enforced, and Llywrch is suggesting that we make no enforcement because there is no policy.   Will Beback  talk  05:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) No, what I was saying is that because there is no consensus on the matter, the policy page will remain unstable. As for policy on the matter, there's nothing keeping anyone from acting on what they believe is abusive editting -- but speaking for myself I would recommend to anyone acting on this matter to proceed carefully because of the inevitable blow-back. -- llywrch (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC) First of all, you have derailed this thread from getting a focussed answer. Second, you are misrepresenting what I'm stating, perhaps not on purpose. My concern is that Wales stated a paragraph of things and called it policy in an RfC, many folks disagreed with him and noted it was likely unenforcible and unneeded. My request was how do we accurately represent this with due weight. There seems to be less of a willingness to declare Wales' decrees as policy yet I see little to confirm how this can be presented. The RfC itself presented a split view of a divided community likely because editors such as yourself keep conflating paid editing as COI and advocacy when it clearly is not that simple. If you're unwilling to step back enough to allow uninvolved admins to comment in an area they are likely to be able to offer an opinion it's likely you'll drown out healthy discussion. -- Banjeboi 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) This thread does not belong to any of us. Shall we both step back? We're both involved editors. There are concerns about "ownership" of the policy page, and there is also a consensus of involved editors that folks who are editing the page should disclose their paid editing, if any. We may need to address those issues before we can succeed in reaching consensus on the policy itself.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I just wanted to note that somewhat recently there was an incident at the COI noticeboard regarding a paid editor, Gkerkvliet. See here for the original noticeboard report. The article was later deleted in a snowball discussion, and in that discussion the editor admitted to being paid. DGG stated in that discussion: I agree with you that if the content meets the standard, the manner of editing is irrelevant. I suppose under the principles of free enterprise that the paid editors who judge rightly will be the ones that prosper. But perhaps that's unfair since it is true that our judgements are not all that predictable or consistent. Other administrators took part in that deletion discussion, but nobody took offense at the fact that the editor was paid to edit the article, including non-administrators in the discussion. Personally I don't really see the harm in being paid to edit an article if the contributions are okay, and especially if the editor admits that they are paid to edit an article. -- Atamachat 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Returning to the point of Benjiboi's original question, I believe he meant to ask a question more in the form of "If Jimmy Wales makes a pronouncement on policy, is it policy?" And the answer to that is it depends. While his statements have a lot more weight than any other single Wikipedian, if enough Wikipedians object, it is not policy. (And IMHO, in this case, enough Wikipedians have objected so while it is a weighty opinion in itself his statement is not policy.) Policy pages, please remember, are simply a description of what policy is, not the policy itself. Consensus defines policy at all times -- even if we consent to the policy with silence or inactivity. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Thank you! That's kind of what I was looking for but not finding. As a follow-up do you think this bears mentioning on the summary-of-existing-practices page and if so what might be a NPOV of presenting this? -- Banjeboi 21:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Well speaking for myself, I would mention it. My preference would be either a quotation or a link to the diff where he made that statement. (I believe this is it.) And if he has made any further comment on the matter, include at least a link to it too. The reason for this is quite simple: his opinions carry weight on Wikipedia. There are Wikipedians who, if he made the comment that everyone should only edit Wikipedia wearing a beanie cap with a propeller, would immediately buy one & wear it; then there are Wikipedians who react to that statement with countless arguments in opposition -- even if Wales later admitted he was just joking. But because not everyone posting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing supported his statement, it is appropriate to include that as a factual observation. What the background section should contain is a factual review of all relevant discussions -- or at least links to them. (Reviewing that RfC, it is clear that the majority of commentators to that page did not support that statement: out of hundreds of people who left their opinions in that discussion, only 66 explicitly supported that statement. However, the people who opposed that statement, either in whole or part, were not in consensus over an alternative to it, nor seem to be in agreement beyond "paid editting in some cases is clearly wrong, & a user can be properly banned for it.") -- llywrch (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Very much appreciate your consideration on this ... I was specifically looking for the best way to present the Using administrator tools; I'd like to be clear and accurate. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Are you referring to this thread on the talk page? My own, feeling about writing statements on policy is that when a subject is covered on another policy page, there is no need to discuss it on the page in question -- unless the intent is to implicitly create loopholes in the policy, or make it more restrictive. (Think of the rule against 3RR's, but there is a specific exception in the case of cleaning up vandalism; one policy -- 3RR -- is amended by another -- against vandalism.) We have rules about abuse of Admin privileges already; in the case of using/abusing them for pay, the only difference I can see that anyone would agree to is that the penalties should be more severe: for example, instead of just losing the Admin bit, the abuser loses it and gets blocked for a while. But that is just my opinion, based on general principals; if someone wanted to take action against another Wikipedian who abused his privileges for pay in a specific way, I would recommend the matter be first brought to WP:AN/I until a consensus developed about how to handle this. Sorry to ramble so much on this, but I'm hedging my opinions here because I don't want to discover that I'm the guy who created consensus & policy over this matter, when handling these matters needs input & buy-in from a large number of Wikipedians to make it work! -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC) Actually it would be this thread. I'm not sure it even needs to be on the page but if it is it should be accurate. Right now we have “ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden.<ref> [[WP:ADMIN]] prohibits gross violations of community trust, which includes making administrative decisions for pay.</ref> ” I feel we may be erring here to assume any admin action is inherently a "gross violations of community trust". Arbcom was mentioned as stating such but a cite hasn't been forthcoming. I really don't care what the actual status quo is as long as we accurately reflect it even if we state - this is generally a bad idea and ask at ___ if unsure. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC) I'm trying to think of an administrative action undertaken for pay that would be aceptable. Blocking or unblock? Certainly not. Deleting a page? I think most would consider that a problem. Viewing deleted pages? There are issues there, especially if the page had inappropriate content. Protecting or unprotecting pages? It doesn't seem likely anyone would pay for that, but if they did it would be a bad reason. Administrative actions shold be done in strict accordance with Wikipedia policies and for the sole purpose of improving the project and minimizing disruption. Benjiboi, which adminstrative actions do you think would be acceptable to do for pay?   Will Beback  talk  16:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Well, the types I can envision would more properly fall under WP:COI. Say an employee of a given company who is also an Admin (hey, Admins have bills to pay too!) deletes an article that otherwise meets CSD or BLP criteria; you just know that some disgruntled party is going argue that their primary motivation was due to favoring their employer. (And yes, this can happen: people forget about these things, don't have the time to pass the chore to another Admin, or consider a given example such a blatant violation of the rules they can safely ignore the rules.) My opinion about the entire question of doing Wikipedia work for pay is that many of the possible problems are covered by existing policies; if there are any not covered by existing policies or guidelines they need to be mentioned, discussed & addressed. -- llywrch (talk ) 17:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, that's primarily a COI thing. Say I'm paid to write about Amalgamated Widgets, Inc. I come across an article titled "Deaths allegedly caused by Widgets" and I decide it looks like an attack page. Then deleting that page myself would represent a COI since my employer or client is that company. Now they may not have specifically ordered me to do so or given me a payment for it, but it'd be a COI in any case. The bigger problem here is that COI is a rather weak guideline and, when faced by the powerful forces that money and commerce can bring, it may not be sufficient to protect Wikipedia from turning into a public relations site.   Will Beback  talk  20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (Uh-oh. I seem in danger of exceeding my limit of colons for the month. ;-) Maybe then we ought to discuss the COI guideline. Along those lines, just how well has Wikipedia handled COI when it comes to religion? There is some historical data along those lines, & might give us some insights into how to prevent repeating our failures. The motivations of the faithful employee are often indistinguishable from the religiously devout or members of a cult. IIRC, the first significant incident over "true believers" having a conflict of interest was dealing with a group of LaRouchies who insisted on inserting his collected wisdom into every article. (This was 2003 or 2004, I believe.) -- llywrch (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Deleting a page as part of a page move. That could be a non-controversial admin action that one might perform as part of a paid edit. Of course, I think that's a commonsense exception to a policy like this, and one that doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. Guettarda (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Outdent. Would this seem to be more accurate? -- Banjeboi 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC) “ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is generally forbidden and likely seen as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist.<ref> WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admin actions can likely be seen as problematic.</ref> ” Instead of "generally forbidden" I would like to see "strongly discouraged", but I admit I find it difficult to justify those words even to myself. -- llywrch (talk) 03:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Agreed, I've done more research and think this may be more on the mark. “ Using administrator tools for compensation of any kind is discouraged as it is likely perceived as a COI; ask for an uninvolved admin to assist with any admin actions likely seen as controversial.<ref> Although there is no policy prohibiting paid editing or admining, WP:ADMIN prohibits gross violations of community trust; even non-controversial admining may be seen as problematic.</ref> ” Are we getting closer? -- Banjeboi 04:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the block message

Our block message has serious issues.

I'm not talking about templates you leave on someone's talk page, I'm talking about MediaWiki:Blockedtext, the green monster that shows up for every blocked user when they try to edit a page, no matter why they were blocked. I've looked at the message and found excessive use of Wikipedia jargon, references to processes that haven't been that way for four years, paragraphs upon paragraphs that are irrelevant to 99.9% of blocked users, some sentences that don't even make sense to me, and finally, too damn much text. Even the typography is bad, impeding people from skimming over the irrelevant parts.

It's not a message most of us see often, so I can understand how it got neglected, but I'd like to fix it. Discussion at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext#Full of jargon and inaccuracies. rspεεr (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks

Can anyone explain as to how the following blocks by

username policy

?

• Ihatehorrormovies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), with one edit that is low-level vandalism, does not warrant an indefinite block of dubious accord based on a username.
• M1k3ypwns3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for having an offensive username. The user has just one edit.
• XoTheJetsetLifeIsGonnaKillYouox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for much the same, only that there are no edits.
• Longlivecommunism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, despite there being only two edits on record.
• Bottracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked because of the word "bot" embedded in the username.

I can list further examples, but I am not too pleased that little or incorrect rationale is being given to these surmised username violations. seicer | talk | contribs 22:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are all a little inexplicable. From a read through the talk page of the last one, it looks like there could have been a (better) discussion about the concerns surrounding the name and, if that was the genuine concern, a softblock could have been applied (as the user even suggested). It rather seems that other issues were the real problem and the name issue was what was used as an indef justification which seems like an endrun around dealing with the original issues that the user had. The original block for copyright issues at the top of the talkpage seems on the surface to be a little hasty (unless there are other facts that aren't obvious) and it looks like the situation then got out of control without any real cool down/explanation time. As far as the others go, it appears that the vandalism only account reasoning was used prematurely without an adequate pattern to permit that judgement. None of those names suggest to me a user with no intent to contribute constructively without the associated contributions history to back that assessment. Mfield (Oi!) 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't take more than one edit to make a judgement on a vandalism only account. Really. Brandon (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proper protocol does not parse judgment on one edit, per

blocking policy, and then assign a false block summary based upon a vague descriptor. seicer | talk | contribs

23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I disagree, I am sure there are plenty of editors who's first edit was not constructive. I am not questioning the application of a block, but to block indefinitely, as a vandalism-only account, seems like not using that specific justification as it may be intended. Sure, if a user only has one edit and that edit is vandalism then their account is by definition a vandalism-only account. But a 24 hour block would stop the immediate problem and might well prompt them not to continue vandalizing. A second, constructive, edit would then make their account not vandalism-only. I feel it is rushing to judgement to make a block after only one edit, especially if the vandalism does not appear to be overly malicious or could be interpreted as initial messing about from a newbie. How do you make a certain enough assessment on the character of a person you have never met based on one edit without knowing anything else about the person? I am a fairly regular admin patrolling

UAA and I wouldn't feel comfortable hardblocking a username as displaying an intent not to contribute constructively with that little track record to go on, nor would i feel comfortable declaring an account to be vandalism only with the same short record to go on. Mfield (Oi!

) 23:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

When I was an admin, I didn't patrol UAA but I blocked vandalism-only accounts fairly regularly. I did not block accounts whose edits consisted of one edit, or two edits, and make broad assumptions that it was therefore a username block. seicer | talk | contribs 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking those accounts because of their user names is just plain stupid. --DroolingVegetable (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, your username is way more offensive than any of the above. Mfield (Oi!) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with Nja247 before bringing it here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

As a general note, not on these specifically, I have always found the username blocks have been WAY over applied here. Unless the name itself is GROSSLY DISRUPTIVE, the situation could probably be better handled by asking the account holder to file for a

WP:AN tribunal? --Jayron32

23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On that note I was trying to make general comments and points on the blocks in question myself, rather than pass judgement on the actions of the admin in question. Mfield (Oi!) 23:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because it is a larger issue that should merit further questioning and investigation throughout. I've noted other dubious UAA blocks in recent weeks - blocks that should be overturned. seicer | talk | contribs 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I would say at the very least the last two are acceptable blocks. Bottracker is a clear violation of

WP:U

, namely "your name should not end or begin with 'bot' ." Longlivecommunism could easily be seen as a promotional username, although perhaps more edits could have been used to asses the user wasn't trying to promote communism; the vandalism obscured that chance. 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My take with Bottracker, is that the user was blocked for copyright violations, but before he had an adequate chance to discuss his edits or to potentially take corrective action -- which no one pointed the user to the right direction and decided to template-spam the guy -- he was indef'ed for a username violation. And his talk page disabled. Great way to show a user the welcome mat. seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear violations of

WP:CHU

rather than blocking them. Look at it this way, there are three kinds of bad usernames:

1. Borderline cases where the user is a good faith editor: start a dialogue and politely request them to request a username change at
   WP:CHU
   .
2. Borderline cases where the user is a vandal/spammer/otherwise bad editor: block them for the editing, not the username. If you block them for their username, it implies that, and not the behavior, is the problem
3. Eggregiously bad usernames which are grossly profane or disruptive: block away.

FAR too often, admins quickly block ALL of these situations, which according to

WP:U, is clearly against best practices. We should try to work with new users to choose a correct username rather than blocking them for an unintended violation. --Jayron32

03:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I addressed Nja247 privately about M1k3ypwns3 and Zz022 (not on this list). Both discussions are already archived in User talk:Nja247/Archive 06. He was mildly apologetic about M1k3ypwns3, but brought out the defense that "he was going to be a vandal anyway". He didn't back down on Zz022. I let it drop, because I figured that Nja247 was generally reasonable, the point had been made, and it would be better to try to stop people from reporting these names in the first place. So I'm disheartened to see this list of further unjustified username blocks. rspεεr (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"He was going to be a vandal anyway", while often a correct prediction, is simply not a valid reason for blocking, especially not under the pretense of a username block.--Atlan (talk) 02:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks should not be issued on Bottracker. It's quite clear Bottracker never had the intention to confuse others as a bot account. Who's next to block? Someone that has a username starting with "Bottle" or "Botany"? I see that Nja247 wishes to issue blocks reckless rather than spending time explaining. It's exactly this kind of behavior that contributes to the decline of new users. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I made it a point, towards the end of my adminship, to at least extend an olive branch with the hope that some of these editors could be reformed. While it was a fruitless effort with some, I did manage to snag a few editors to the bright light. Bottracker never, never, never had the intention to be confused with a bot -- it was a harmless mistake, and in his confusion and in his question, there were administrators who refused to answer his questions. Instead, they were dismissed and his talk page was disabled, with a cowardly message left stating that he had to e-mail some list to be unblocked. Good job. seicer | talk | contribs 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• It appears to me that the blocks were not just for the usernames, but the usernames and the edit or edits made in relation the username. It seems rather aggressive enforcment, but I think showing restraint towards content contributors would be more beneficial than worrying about extending good faith for a borderline username that makes joke edits. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

With that kind of reasoning, you can find a reason to block a whole lot of newbies. Many people start out by doing one or two things "wrong", like having a borderline username or making joke edits. There's too much focus on punishing newbies for breaking any of the large number of rules Wikipedia has, instead of explaining the rules and trying to put things right in a way that keeps the editor editing. I'm not promising it will always work, but if we're to stop the declining participation in Wikipedia, we need to try.

But that aside, what's even "borderline" about these usernames? What rule were they on the verge of breaking (leave out the "bot" one, which is a kind of stupid technicality)? You can't just point at someone with no justification and say "You have a borderline username! That means we don't have to assume good faith from you." rspεεr (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Let me note this is really a bit of a kick in the teeth. I would have appreciated a more direct attempt to discuss the concern with myself, possibly at the username policy, UAA , or my own talk pages. Further, an apology would be expected for calling my actions cowardly. If these had been brought to my attention ahead of time I would have discussed it. However coming directly here is quite odd, and I have issue with it, and with the attack on me. What's truly to be accomplished from this?
  247
  08:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note, when actually asked in an appropriate manner I respond. See
  247
  08:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You responded, and I even chose not to escalate it at the time, but I can't say I'm happy with your response of basically saying "my bad" and continuing to block newbies for no good reason. Seicer had every right to start this thread, because AN is an appropriate forum for the continued misuse of blocking powers. For comparison, you'll likely come out of this with just a wounded ego, but users such as Bottracker and XoTheJetsetLifeIsGonnaKillYouox are just gone. I'll take five new users over an admin's pride any day. rspεεr (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Further, what is this all about?
  247
  08:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lacking common courtesy and calling me cowardly is hardly an issue with wounded pride. And again, what's the goal here? If they wanted my attention about concerns they had about the block that's what talk pages are for. This isn't a severe or ongoing pattern and along with the name calling I question intent.

247

08:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this not an ongoing pattern? I see blocks spanning almost a month from mid-July to mid-August. Can you please respond to the original statement of questionable username blocks, rather than guessing at the intent of other users here? --NE2 09:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think four separate blocks are enough to be a concern. Your response of "you can unblock" plus "what now" doesn't indicate any belief that it was a bad block, or more accurately, it may have been a bad block but it isn't something worth fixing or apologizing to the blocked user for. Do you think it was just a small error, because that's exactly what I'm concerned about. Blocks are a BIG deal, and especially indefinite blocks like that, and it seems others feel the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I do think it's an issue and I don't discourage discussing the concern, however I wonder what this is meant to accomplish? If it were brought to my direct attention I would have listened. Simply having five others say the same thing doesn't do anything at all for me or those users. I've apologised for the error made when it was brought to my attention and since the discussion on the 8th-10th of this month I've been trying to ensure any username block action taken is within policy. Ricky missed "I'm open to all suggestions you have to make it better and I apologise for this possible mistake in advance." I've done my best to address the concerns, but I do not see how this is meant to be helpful and I think an answer as to the end goal is deserved as well as an apology for the attack.

247

09:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you've gotten me to notice something that I think is being overlooked in this discussion: all the blocks Seicer listed are old, and they predate when I talked to you about M1k3ypwns3. After that there were still other users you blocked after very small violations, such as User:UnNeggafied and User:Zz022, which was the second one I brought up. And since then you've toned it down. I was misled about the chronological order of things, and thought you had recently made these bad blocks. That doesn't make them okay, but we should move on.

At this point, then, I just want you to realize the severity of blocking anyone, no matter what their status on Wikipedia, and think about the newbie behind each account. The discussions I had with you didn't give me any confidence. I want you to realize that you were pretty clearly in the wrong in the Bottracker incident (unless there are some oversighted edits I'm not seeing?) and I think your actions there could be accurately, if bluntly, described as cowardly. But I seriously apologize to you for perpetuating the misinterpretation that you were still doing this kind of thing. rspεεr (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Username blocks are one of the most worthless activities that can be pursued on this site. John Reaves 09:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• And further, what's this all about? "Vote for your favourite!" and seicer "I have nothing better to do, so I started a thread at AN". I'm not amused at the fact that there's a poll being ran as a joke to vote for a favourite of my blocks. Nor would the users who are blocked. Obviously you can't help that it was started, but if you truly had nothing better to do, then why not discuss it with me as I'd like to know about my mistakes and have a chance to address them, rather than be a discussion and/or joke on some back forum. As noted above I apologised and have done my best since that discussion and I plan to move on and possibly take the advice of John Reaves and let that aspect of Wikipedia alone.
  247
  09:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That WR thread is as ugly as most threads about Wikipedians on WR, but you shouldn't make it sound like Seicer started the thread or said "Vote for your favorite!". Seicer actually did bring it to Wikipedia, which is much better than a bunch of WR people sniping from afar. rspεεr (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Nja247 has pointed out to me that he made an honest mistake in attributing that to Seicer. No problem. rspεεr (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me this is bound to happen because of

fisto

11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Correct. I only had free time, but yes, I do check
  UAA from time-to-time. I am a former administrator and did handle some UAA requests -- although I found it to be a most useless endeavor because IMO, there are bigger fish to fry and because the risk of alienating new users is pretty high. Doesn't matter if it was posted at WR, where I rarely post -- and if you note, where I am fairly often criticized for my actions, so it's not as if I am the popular guy around there. In addition, I am not apologizing for the thread being brought up here, and for bruised egos
  .

I'll survive. It's not so much a bruised ego, as you've put it on multiple forums, but rather dramatising things rather than going straight to the source.

247

12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Things happen, administrators make mistakes, you learn and hope to make the best of a situation and go from there. Since you have noted that you are going to pursue other venues than UAA for now, someone should at least review some of those blocks and unblock the users that pose no threat -- e.g. Bottracker, since there is consensus here that he was doing no ill or harm outside of a mistaken name. seicer | talk | contribs 12:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• And yes, there is no oversight over UAA as much as there is over bad blocks sent to AIV. seicer | talk | contribs 12:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - it seems to me some of this problem arises from inappropriate use of {{Uw-uhblock}} instead of {{Uw-ublock}}. The former is, to all intents and purposes, "fuck off and don't come back". (Too strong? Imagine getting it slapped on your userpage after your first couple of edits.) The latter says, "hey, listen, your name isn't totally cool, but that's OK, you can choose a new account name straight away or request a username change." The former, obviously, should be used with great caution. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the bigger problem is that every block says to every newbie "fuck off and don't come back". Regardless of the nuances of the template we leave on their talk page when we block them, regardless of how nicely worded it is, blocking is a drastic thing to do to someone, especially a new user, and if there is anyway we can correct or steer a newbie in the right direction without blocking them is ALWAYS preferable to blocking. That's the problem with nearly all username blocks. --Jayron32 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's also true. Warning messages should be used if at all possible before blocking. At the moment we seem to {{Uw-username}}, which may be underused as it requires a manual reason. Maybe we can adapt {{Uw-ublock}} for a warning/notification message? That would probably help. Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Tried a draft here: {{Uw-usernamewarn}}. How's that look? Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucratic. What was wrong with actually telling the user what you're warning them about? rspεεr (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing. But people who do a lot of this stuff in practice (I do zip) often don't, and perhaps end up blocking instead at least in some cases (block templates are one-shot, and then, with block, it's quickly done and dusted), and if a partial reason for that is that there isn't a one-shot template ({{

username}} needs a parameter to explain the reasoning), well then we should have a one-shot warning template. Rd232 ^talk

21:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I think we should make some one-shot templates for the different things you could be warning them about (as well as common combinations of policies, like "slightly promotional username + COI" or "slightly disruptive username + vandalism"). Templates should at least try to sound like a message a real person should leave, so "I'm warning you for one of the following N reasons" is not a helpful template. rspεεr (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I slightly disagree - in most cases people will be read the template and know what they're doing wrong. And if it isn't obvious, the warning editor shouldn't use the template! More specific ones might be better, yes, but if we start getting lots of them, it just adds to the stack of templates for people to not quite remember when they need them. Rd232 ^talk 22:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe, and this is a revolutionary thought, so bear with me, a concerned editor could take the time to craft a personal note they actually thought through and wrote themselves specificly for the situation, and then could follow through with the newbie to see that any problems they have are easily fixed. --Jayron32 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

O we can dream.... Seriously, in the recent past I'm feeling that overuse of templates is becoming a problem - especially the templates which look Official rather than vaguely like templated personal messages. (And how about those welcome templates that take up half a page - way to go overwhelming people...). Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Every one of those ought to be unblocked, for reasons thoroughly covered above. Bottracker can be asked to get a new name, NOT because of a three letter string in his name, but because the entire name sounds almost like a sanctioned function of the project, tracking the performance of the various automated processes running here. The entire 'no using 'bot' in a name rule has massive flaws, as the WR points out... Botany for example? Botched, like these blocks? The rule should be that any new user making a name which can reasonably be interpreted as the name of a bot account or other automated process will be asked to change it, not blocked on sight. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked all five accounts discussed here. We can't undo the damage, but we can't let the blocks stand, either. If Bottracker were to come back, we might want to make a very friendly suggestion about his name, but it's not that important. If he does miraculously come back and see the unblock message, he deserves to be left alone by the username process. I feel terrible about the way that Wikipedia treated him. rspεεr (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Check the facts first, Bottracker's original block had nothing to do with his username

I see. I blocked Bottracker for "Disruptive editing: refusal to discuss copyright issues and extreme personal attacks possibly driving another editor away" and he is now told that "The two admins who blocked you were completely unjustified in doing so. ". What in the world is going on here when an Admin blocks someone for what they think are good reasons, and without even dealing with the reason for the original block at all, or having the courtesy to contact me, he's unblocked? And his username wasn't the basic reason for changing the block so he couldn't edit his own talk page either, which was the only other action before he was unblocked for reasons which had nothing to do with the block. Why is he owed an apology, as Rspeer has said on his talk page? I wouldn't mind being told I shouldn't have blocked him for continued copyright violations, but I'd expect a discussion. It's a shame the other Admin even mentioned the username business as it wasn't the actual reason for the block and that caused confusion.

talk

) 21:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I'm off to bed now so won't be replying. I do think that the apology to him suggests he did nothing wrong, which is simply not the case.

talk

) 21:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well Doug obviously I made an error, but I have no comment on the rest of it, though I don't see how your original block is now unjustified.

247

21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that the edit history there raises serious concerns that existed (and arguably continue exist) quite independent from any username block. The nature of the hasty unblock does not appear to be as prudent as it should have been. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's establish something here. Is there any evidence that Bottracker's images actually violated a copyright? It looks like he was trying to argue the whole time that the images were his own, but they started being sent through processes to get them deleted (which are bewildering to a newbie). He tried to add the appropriate tags and another user he was arguing with removed them. The statement that he was "refusing to discuss copyright issues" looks false on the face of it. It looks more like everyone else was refusing to discuss it with him. If there was some solid evidence of a copyright violation and he was pulling an

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, it's different, but I haven't found such a thing yet in Bottracker's editing history. I do not think that blocking was the correct resolution to that dispute. rspεεr (talk

) 22:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That, and during the times he was attempting to discuss the issues at hand, he was censored and was told he was attacking administrators -- which wasn't the case. His talk page was disabled and he was essentially told to fuck off. A new user. seicer | talk | contribs 23:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

At the point I blocked him, he had never commented on his talk page but had blanked every warning. About 36 of his uploads had been deleted by various editors. Two other Administrators declined his unblock request. He was in a heated discussion with personal attacks with another (leading to that users temporary and newer user with edits such as this [50]. Four Administrators were involved in his block.

talk

) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two sides to every story, so let me re-summarize from what I see. He started by uploading a lot of pictures to Wikipedia. He got into a dispute with other users who were accusing him of violating copyright. He lashed out once out of frustration, especially given that he did not believe he was violating copyright because he had taken the pictures in question. The dispute escalated, and administrators piled on him for not following the right procedures. Then, in a glorious example of how not to de-escalate a dispute, they blocked him. So, did he do something wrong besides being a newbie and not following procedures? rspεεr (talk) 08:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But is not the reason you unblocked him. He never responded on his talk page to numerous notices. Several other administrators deleted all the images he uploaded. He didn't get blocked for not following the right procedures, he got blocked because instead of discussing the notices on his talk page he simply deleted them, never responding, and because he attacked another editor. It was an indefinite block and the whole thing could have been over within minutes if he'd started to respond civilly (although given the edits he did to on the other user's talk page, this seemed unlikely). His unblock requests showed no interest in having a discussion or changing his behavior, which is why two other administrator's declined his unblock requests. You are saying they were wrong, but (repeating myself) he didn't respond in a way that would encourage anyone to unblock him. Dealing with copyright violations is a huge pain in the neck, particularly image ones. And then when another Admin comes along and tells him blocking him was unjustified and gives him a 'sincere apology' - what message does that send? You didn't even comment on the issue, just told him in effect that he was right and the other 4 nasty Administrators were wrong. And perhaps all the Admins who deleted his files?

talk

) 09:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The other user you mention is one that he was in a heated content dispute with. She was certainly doing her part to escalate the dispute, especially when reverting his edits with edit comments like "OMG ARE YOU EVEN GHANAIAN?". It takes two to tango, yet she's still here, so getting into this dispute can't be the entire reason for a block.

2. Everything else stems from the copyright accusation, which I believe was false. It's basically the administrators' word against his, but when an established editor fights with a newbie, I side with the newbie.

3. The unblock requests were loud and angry because by that time it was clear that everyone involved was fixating on process details like "removing templates" and nobody was actually listening to him. This is human nature.

So yes. It seems to me quite likely that Bottracker was a reasonable person faced with unreasonable circumstances, and deserves a sincere apology. One that is largely symbolic because he's probably not coming back. Do you want to revert my apology? Would that make Wikipedia a better place? rspεεr (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

While you were writing the above, I was raising this here. If you think making such an apology and denouncing me without first informing me is a good thing, that's your opinion. I clearly disagree.

talk

) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

A message from Black Kite has established evidence that this user was actually violating copyright, which is what I originally asked about. Given that, I can agree that the original block was justified. (Maybe a less faceless copyright process could have averted the problem.) Dougweller, I should not have implicated you in my unblock message.

The followup to the first block still strikes me as absurd, though, and the second block should not stand. So how about this: I agree that Dougweller's block was correct, but I leave the user unblocked, and on the off chance that the user comes back, I will try to mentor him and take responsibility.

Here's my new unblock message, which does not exonerate Bottracker or imply that Dougweller was wrong in blocking him. Okay? rspεεr (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. Your new block messages is very satisfactory and I'm glad to see this concluded amicably. Our copyright policy on images can be difficult to explain to people - I suspect a lot of editors never read it in any case, and that many people assume that if they see no copyright notice the lack of a notice means there is no copyright. The large number of uploads and the small number of Admins and other editors who get involved makes it even more difficult. Mind you, textual copyrights may be easier to spot but still a pain, I spent quite a bit of the weekend rewriting articles because the editor wasn't around and the alternative to rewriting was deletion.

talk

) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

With some username blocks it makes you think admins have block targets set for them or something.--

Otterathome (talk

) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ {{cite web |url=http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=gcc&lang2=javaxint&box=1 |title=The Computer Language Benchmarks Game