Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218

Just found an editor adding what he says is another editor's real name on an article talk page. The editor is probably a sock as they only have about 6 edits. What's the form with outing now? Rev/del, report to ANI, what? Thanks.

Sorry, the 'named' editor denied that that was his name, but it was still an outing attempt. Maybe just warn the offending editor? I'd still like to know the drill for future reference.

talk

) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the drill is usually block and oversight. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also FYI failed outing should be treated the same way. And the editor shouldn't comment on if the outing was successful or not (even if it wasn't). See

WP:OUTING - Kingpin¹³ (talk

) 17:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I probably didn't make it clear, but that's also what I was getting at: the user should be blocked and the revision oversighted as personally-identifiable information, regardless of whether or not it is true. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A block should not be automatic. If it's malicious then probably, but a revdel and warning that it's against policy can also be appropriate. Admins are employed for their judgment, so I'd recommend that Doug. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but in this case it seems pretty malicious to me; a non-malicious "outing" would be accidentally using the real name of someone you know in real life while on wikipedia, in which case a warning or a simple note would be more appropriate than a block. Attempting to impersonate someone and trying to reveal their real name probably warrants an indef, imo. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a fairly notorious case of a few years back when a "newbie" account outed another editor when commentating that the target account was contributing to an article in a manner which advocated the the subject's use and that they had a big COI in that regard. The outing editor was first blocked and then banned, and took to socking and off-wiki postings and suchlike, while the article contributor continued to edit and furthermore had many editors who expressed concern over the article(s) blocked as sock or meatpuppets of the banned editor. Regretfully, it transpired that the outing editor was correct, and the contributor was using Wikipedia to further their personal interests within the subject matter in real life. The original editor was unbanned and the really abusive contributor banned - as he remains today, although he apparently still tries to edit the articles via socks. Especially with newbie editors, it pays to carefully regard whether they are outing someone for malicious reasons or they think a COI should be noted - not that the latter is always appropriate, but some AGF may be directed toward them by means of noting the correct method of addressing those concerns and warning against repeating the comment. Obviously malicious outing should be dealt with by blocks; preferably indefinite ones - new editors can always start again, more carefully, and established editors have no excuse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

The move request at

 Done —

talk

) 19:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks bunches. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User unblocked, any underlying issues regarding templates should be discussed elsewhere.  Sandstein  22:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive215#Block review: User:Yobot

Yesterday, I informed Magioladitis [1] that he needed to stop his campaign of insignificant and trivial edits contrary to

Many of his edits stem from his apparent desire to have as few templates/template redirects as possible and he makes edits to articles that have no change on the rendered text (e.g.), spamming watchlists, and then jamming up RFD and TFD processes trying to have the templates that he orphaned in

Instead of stopping, he today engaged on another campaign targeting {{three other uses}} [2]. Since he is an administrator, I cannot revoke his AWB access - so I have instead blocked him indefinitely pending review. Any administrator may feel free to unblock him if they feel I have erred, or the user agrees to stop this pattern of behaviour. –xeno^talk 17:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I commend him for cleaning up templates, we have way too many useless redirects, some house cleaning is needed regularity. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If they were useless, they wouldn't be used. –xeno^talk 19:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite often Template:A is created, then Template:B is created which is an extension of template:A (IE {{other uses}} when it had a single parameter) Template:B adds a second parameter to {{other uses}}. At some later date Template:A is modified to incorporate the features and parameters of Template:B, thus making B redundant to A, people sill use B, for a long time, until someone comes along, cleans up its usage and then deletes it as redundant. Normal house cleaning. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the standard procedure is to simply redirect B to A. —

David Levy

19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, we have a process for deleting them as G6, most of the time redirects dont work due to very minor syntax differences. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken. Deleting wrapper templates/template redirects (that users might call from memory) is user-hostile and breaks old revisions. –xeno^talk 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

CSD G6 is for "uncontroversial maintenance." This is far from uncontroversial. —

David Levy

19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should also note that you are in a dispute with said user and thus should NOT be using your admin tools, (which you have already done in a conflict of interest case/involved administrator). ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My interactions with this user have been administrative in nature; attempting to enforce guidelines and AWB's rules of use. –xeno^talk 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that I think that this is unnecessary and I personally agree with Magio's "crusade" against template redirects. Some of my reasons are listed below:

• Template redirects can have undesireable effects on third party links such as Facebook, mirror sites, Wikibooks, etc.

• There were a couple examples recently that have come up about certain templates not working correctly when Facebook displays the page. Unfortunatley I didnt write them down but I think it was {{
  talk
  ) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Template redirects can also have undesireable effects within WP. They make it difficult to account for when programming bots or scripts.

• To use {{
  talk
  ) 19:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Template redirects can be confusing to the users. If you are a user and you are new to WP and you see a template listed 5 or 6 different ways it is easy to get confused into thinking they are all different. Add to that the hundreds or thousands of valid templates WP has and you have a big mess. The whole point of a redirect is to allow a link to the real article that intuitively could be done by the users. To an article though this can get really confusing because in some cases we really do have multiple templates that do similar like things. Additionally Magio maintains several bots and is one of the programmers of AWB. Too block him based indefinately based on something that is best described as a disagreement would be a serious blow to WP. --
  talk
  ) 19:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence for your claims. Oh, and indefinite=forever. (FYI, I have recently

cautioned Kumioko about similar edits contrary to AWB's rules of use.) –xeno^talk

19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not merely a simple disagreement. In his reply to xeno Magioladitis said “The template is marked as ‘Deprecated’”. There was no such marking on the template or the template's talk page at that time. More than twenty-eight hours later Magioladitis nominated the template for deletion. This is only the latest incidence of this behavior and the only one that I can document. JimCubb (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion, but this was a different template we were talking about there. –xeno^talk 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to add by paraphrasing something from an ongoing conversation with Xeno on my talk page. I think he is getting too worried about watchlists. If I was doing edits that somehow adversely impacted the server performance or was somehow affecting the site itself I could understand and would agree. But, doing so many edits that I am filling watchlists is not a problem for me. Personally I smile whenever I see my watchlist fill up because that means the pages I have on my watchlist (which is about 18000 BTW) are getting some love. The more love they get the better they are. Trivial or otherwise each improvement made to an article makes it a little better. --

talk

) 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason AWB has a rule against trivial and insignificant edits is in part because it clogs up watchlists. Just because you don't mind someone making an edit just to bypass a template redirect doesn't mean others want that on their watchlist when there is almost no net benefit. –xeno^talk 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution, press the "Hide minor edits" option. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should users change the behaviour of their interface to accommodate users who ignore guidelines, rules, and community norms? –xeno^talk 19:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Further, why counsil an editor to use a function that also hides massive or malicious edits that are hidden as "minor"? An no, I'm not labeling the 'bot migration of templates as malicious - contentious definetly, but it is certainly not overtly or intentionally malicious. But everyone has run into editors that always mark their edits as "minor". In some cases that lets lots bypass watch lists - from honest errors up through blatant vandalism. - J Greb (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block. Magioladitis is well aware that the community has rejected his/her logic (and just participated in some discussions in which this sentiment was reinforced), and he/she simply doesn't care. He/she is deliberately engaging in actions contradicting policy/consensus, attempting to force through his/her preferences by any means necessary. This is highly disruptive (especially for someone with the sysop bit, which he/she has used to speedily delete longstanding redirects not meeting any CSD) and needs to cease. —

David Levy

19:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this was a well-advised block. It seems to be rooted in a wikiphilosophical disagreement about whether one should actively replace redirected templates. I have no opinion about this, except that it is not a disagreement that should be settled by blocks among admins. The replacements are not patently disruptive and I imagine that one can disagree whether such edits are "insignificant or inconsequential edits" according to the AWB rules quoted by Xeno. In the apparent absence of a clear community consensus about this issue, and without any formal stages in the dispute resolution process (such as a RFC) having been undertaken, the indefinite block seems both premature and excessive to me. Any sanction, finally, would probably be more effective if it were not undertaken by an administrator who seems to be actively involved in the underlying policy/procedure/MOS discussions.  Sandstein  19:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: This block might be lifted if Magilatidis will agree to cease his usage of AWB until he obtains consensus in a proper forum. I suggest that Kumioko should stop as well, for the same reason. If Kumioko won't agree, I suppose that admins might revoke his AWB access, since his edits don't seem to conform to

WP:AWB#Rules of use. People who are familiar with AWB might suggest where the proper discussion should occur. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Possible venues are

WT:Template messages and WT:Redirect. –xeno^talk

20:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein:

WP:R2D has wide consensus and existed long before I even started actively editing here. However, please do note (and feel free to act on), my above explicit permission for any admin to modify this block. I've also told Mag that I will unblock him if he agrees to obtain consensus for these changes prior to making them. –xeno^talk

20:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This does not seem to be a case of

Redirect with possibilities}})." It is the latter, parenthetical, case that the edits at issue are more similar to, which suggests that replacing deprecated templates is just fine in the light of that guideline. Sandstein 

10:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic; but this is not the venue to have an extended debate on the meaning of R2D - will take it to the talk page there. –

xeno^talk

14:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do not endorse the length of this block. I'm neutral on the rest, but indefinite is exceptionally harsh given the nature of the edits, and the block lengths recommended by policy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. The block addresses a long-term problem about which Magioladitis has repeatedly been warned, not an isolated incident that can be resolved by blocking for a predefined duration.

And Xeno has agreed to unblock as soon as Magioladitis agrees to seek consensus before continuing the controversial actions. "Indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent" or even "long." —

David Levy

21:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm just checking on that. As long as we agree it's not permanent. I guess as a patrolling admin on

WP:AN3 who regularly hands out escalating blocks which serves as warnings, I was a little taken aback to be honest. Magog the Ogre (talk

) 21:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I understand why it might have seemed harsh in that context. —

David Levy

21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• The question seems to be what constitutes "overly trivial" in the AWB rules of use. I would not consider fixing templates and redirects to be overly trivial in the slightest, for example, though obviously Xeno and others disagree. As such I disagree with the block myself. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One cannot fix something that isn't broken. Please see

David Levy

21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You comment is misleading. By the plain meaning of its text,

WP:R2D applies only to bracketed links, not to transclussions. Ruslik_Zero

08:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. –

xeno^talk

13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• After reading his response, I unblocked Mag and requested he engage the TFD process prior to orphaning further templates. [3] –xeno^talk 02:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This block has no foundation in policy.
  WP:R2D and by extension AWB rules of use applies only to (piped) bracketed links, but not to transclusion of redirects. WP:Redirect actually says that they may create problems with updating template calls. So, this block should be lifted. Ruslik_Zero
  08:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  That line makes no sense and should be removed. Perhaps those who feel template redirects are a problem should consult the community to see if they share their view. Anyhow, I've already unblocked him, as mentioned above. –

  xeno^talk

  13:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Some comments: I won't be able to edit in the next 2 days.

In

WP:AWB's code that was fixed. Of course, it's everybody's right to believe that I was doing the edits in question on purpose. I have already written on the matter in Yobot's talk page

.

In the same discussion it's also mixes the action of bypassing redirects with the one of replacing a template with one other. I consider myself experienced on the subject of the DABlink and I think I have the right to add/replace with one that I think it's more appropriate. If someone checks I corrected many mistakes in DABlinks. Nobody, until now, ever reacted in my edits moving, updating, changing DABlinks. {{

WP:R2D stands on that but this is a discussion we did again. I would like also to note that TfD discussions (not RfD) usually ended with the redundant DABlink to be deleted. Check {{Otheruses6}}, {{Otheruses7}}, {{Otheruses8}} and probably more which I don't have the time now to do find. I willing to get more consensus on these edits if this is the problem but I don't think the problem is that the community isn't aware of the edits but the fact that sme editors disagree with the "The template is redundant to a better-designed template" reason to delete a template. -- Magioladitis (talk

) 14:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

However, that also ignores the AWB rules of use, which I am sure you are aware of. I have also seen trivial edits lately, although I didn't point them out. I'll keep an eye out for more of them. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not an administrator issue, please use the article talk pages to discuss such issues.  Sandstein  22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem. Two articles Binocular vision and Stereopsis have interwiki, for example: nl:Binoculaire dispariteit have en:interwiki Stereopsis but pl:Widzenie stereoskopowe have en:interwiki Binocular vision & nl:Binoculaire dispariteit.
All language articles about topic:

• uk:Бінокулярний зір
• Binocular vision & Stereopsis
• fr:Vision binoculaire
• it:Visione binoculare
• lv:Binokulārā redze
• pt:Visão binocular & pt:Estereopsia
• ru:Бинокулярное зрение
• zh:双眼视觉
• es:Visión binocular
• de:Stereoskopisches Sehen. Page de:Stereopsis return to de:Stereoskopisches Sehen
• ro:Vedere stereoscopică —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepavor (talk • contribs) 12:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is the wrong place for discussing this - I would say place it on thetalk page of one of the articles, and link to the discussion on the talk page of the other. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The user in question has never edited an article, only talkpages. Nothing to see. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 08:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be an idea to watch 58.168.136.97 (talk) who is adding opinion pieces of questionable value to articles related to Adolf Hitler, and in at least one instance to an editor they seem to consider a Hitler apologist. Britmax (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well that's the thing about opinion peices, they're hitler miss... 23:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Durrhurrhurr...

masterka

23:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying my best here; can you nazi that? HalfShadow 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP's only edits are to talk pages; I don't see any mainspace edits. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said "the talk page of Adolf Hitler and an editor they think is a Hitler apologist". Anyway another admin has removed some of them as trolling which is probably what they are. Thanks, guys. Britmax (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• When I look at page
  Template:db-histmerge shows in the list of templates that Rototuna Wind Farm transcludes. What is happening? This bug is causing false alarms when I go to see what needs to be histmerged. This bug has been happening for a day at least, which is surely long enough for all work buffers to clear. Anthony Appleyard (talk
  ) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• That's odd. The template {{
  Template:Db-histmerge is used on the page but it disappears if you preview the page without the infobox. Jafeluv (talk
  ) 15:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• The job queue takes forever sometimes, but if you do a null edit to the template in question (the infobox), it might fix it quickly. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have just tried this dummy edit to page Template:Infobox power station. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• When I look at page Category:Candidates for history merging, pages Castle Donington Power Station, Chadderton Power Station, Rototuna Wind Farm still show as members of it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note well that the job queue has been and still is a major problem. If you look at this page you can see that a template that was updated on September 2 is still not fully processed. Null edits are the only viable option if you want to see the truth. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Furthermore the null edits must be made to the affected pages, not the template that's causing the problem. Graham87 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
      • For no apparent reason, the category is now empty. Jafeluv (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• talk | history | links | watch | logs
  )

Sounds like something I wanted to write during the BADSITES controversy a few years ago. "Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll". The main point being, "no matter how logical or sensible you think your proposal or idea is, there are going to be those who will have good faith reasons to oppose it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If we renamed it "You're a big stupid dick" we could have another MfD over that in which users would call those with opposing views vandals who are worse than Hitler. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:GIANTDICK is already taken... --Jayron32

05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Content noticeboard can handle the low amounts of fiction stuff. So I'm in favor of merging the fiction noticeboard to the content one, and marking the fiction one as historical (or whatever should happen to it). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to see it activated. It would be a good place to hash out, in one spot, topics that span many separate articles, e.g., Transformers. If it could be used effectively in this manner, regardless of how FICT has failed or not, it would take a load off AfD and reduce inconsistent outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to deal with this. An IP editor put an afd template on Chia N Mustafa, but since they're an IP they can't finish the nomination process. I can't do it either, since I'm an IP editor. Where would the appropriate place have been to bring this up? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 06:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Created now. I'll notify the IP so they can add their rationale, although the tag was added two days ago and they haven't edited since. If there are no comments for a while someone can just apply

speedy keep here. Jafeluv (talk

) 09:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Was this the appropriate place to bring this? 216.93.213.191 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, but

you weren't far off. :) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!}

) 20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't require admin attention since any autoconfirmed editor can complete the process; I would suggest

editsemiprotected}} on the article's talk page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

21:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ion Zone (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you go. -FASTILY ^(TALK)

17:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved from

WP:ANI

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE]

16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Meh, if that's his year of birth, he'll grow up or get bored soon enough. It's the adult nutters that seem to be the real LTA nuisances.  Sandstein  19:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

^Lol. Well put. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but I would also point out that

talk

) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is Bambifan we're talking about here. FWIW, he's almost as bad as Grawp. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with a ban as there are almost fifty socks and banning streamlines the whole
  talk
  ) 00:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We should do something; I just clobbered a loudly quacking example as evidenced by

talk

) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm pretty convinced that BF is/was worse than Grawp. Most of the Grawp damage was caused by copycats and BF did all that cross-wiki damage on his own.

• Just ban Mario already. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Consider him banned. He's simply not going to contribute meaningfully. Thanks, Fetch. Diggin' the new signature, BTW. :)

Certainly a ban is warranted. He's defacto banned right now: I can't imagine an admin granting an unblock request.—Kww(talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Can an admin add [[Category:Northern Ireland political party colour templates]] to the template Template:Sinn Féin/meta/color please? Just for ease of navigation from a UK/Northern Ireland perspective. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I note you also brought this up on the template talkpage; note that the talk page is the correct venue, and you can use the {{

editprotected}} template to get an admin's attention. I have added the template to the request for you. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE]

17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ah great. Thanks for pointing that out! All sorted Zangar (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably the wrong venue to bring this up, apologies, but after seeing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Keith_Olbermann_catch_phrases I followed the google link and the first hit is to http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Keith_Olbermann_Catch_Phrases which is a rip-off of the wikipedia page without any attribution. Sorry to palm this off, but thought I ought to alert someone, somehow! Bigger digger (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• How do we know that page is not the source of the article? Is our article a copyvio? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, this is a list of Keith Olbermann's sayings. I guess it's not like we can say we own the copyright to them. I wouldn't worry about it too much, granted the article is on it's way out anyways. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Servinghistory.com is a WP mirror. Licensing is noted at this page, but I think it's insufficient. If someone wants to contact them, go ahead. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• This is twice that this has come up within a fortnight. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive642#Potential Copyvio - Help Needed. Bigger digger, the right venue is here, where you can add all of the several largely identical mashup WWW sites that are run by Discovery Media. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Uncle G, I will put it up there. Bigger digger (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, just search for "cunt" or "fuck" or something similar and limit the search to the user namespace to see what I mean. I've been going through tagging as G3s but there are so many that I'd appreciate if some admins could just go through and help delete all these. They aren't noidexed AFAIK and the absolute last thing we want is for one of them to appear at the top of a google search.

How about we just NOINDEX all of userspace? Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have waded through such searches in the past, it is time consuming but there is an awful lot of userpage vandalism that takes place, I've tagged or deleted plenty of G10s there as well.. Sometimes you just just need to revert to the userpage of a long inactive user, other times it seems an account was just created to use a userpage as a Graffiti wall. Rollbacking and then Semiprotecting the vandalised userpages of long absent Wikipedians is also useful. It might be possible to get an editfilter look for some of this, or perhaps get Huggle or Igloo to look for the use of certain words in userspace - though of course there are also plenty of legitimate uses of any profanity you can think of. ϢereSpielChequers 04:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Igloo has profanity highliting, and is good at detecting userpage vandalism. I also set up a filter that makes any user namespace edit appear at the top

[FATAL ERROR]

05:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

They should be deleted, but I wouldn't be in a rush to NOINDEX them. What set of search terms would bring those pages up on the first page? Protonk (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fuck you", "cunt", "nigga", etc.

[FATAL ERROR]

14:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) (Search within User: Namespace only)

Those are searches on wikipedia's search engine (which works even if we don't allows compliant bots to index the page, which is what NOINDEX does). what google searches will bring these pages on a google search page? Protonk (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Noindex does not affect Wikipedia's search; only Googling. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Marvin fant is it out of scope ?--Musamies (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Promotional userpages can be tagged for

advertising, so you can do that in the future if you catch one like that. I accordingly speedied that one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The nominator has now !voted "keep". Would an uninvolved admin please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baker's Cross? Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Done! JodyB _talk 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this diff might qualify per RD#2. Thank you for your time.

 Done

ANI may get be the location where you will get the quickest response. If it is particularly bad you can request oversight via email here without drawing attention to the edit.  7 

03:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I received an email from the creator of an article that I recently deleted. He was not asking for the article to be reinstated but asked for the deletion message to be removed. It was an expired prod with a rationale of no available sources and a possible hoax. Now if the name is Googled the deletion page comes up with the hoax message which the creator finds damaging professionaly as he is being called a hoax. I thought (foolishly) that I could rectify the problem by reinstating then redeleting with a different message, but now both deletion rationales show up. Is there a way to fix this? I don't want to cause this person excessive grief. Thanks J04n(talk page) 14:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the "deletion messages" you are referring to are the edit summaries in the deletion logs, then the only way to remove them is for the deletion log entries to be removed. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears that this user has also recreated the article. Is the content there now any different from the deleted version? Tarc (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Essentialy the same article but interestingly it was the original prodder that recreated it. To respond to Ks0stm, yes I am referring to the deletion log enties, can they be removed? how? J04n(talk page) 15:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know,

criteria 2, from what I can gather of the RevDel page. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G

) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I used RevDel to take out the edit summary. J04n(talk page) 15:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the article being recreated, the original prodder is interacting with the creator, I'll see how that plays out. J04n(talk page) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved to

WP:ANI

 – GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE]

16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: The previous discussion was archived here. Can an uninvolved admin look at the comments and evaluate consensus? Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This needs a community-wide RfC. The straw poll is an inadequate in terms of consensus to implement a new community discussion board. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a nice opinion, but pointless bureaucratic delay. If it was inadequate, there was plenty of time to say so here before it was archived. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the vast majority of Wikipedia editors do not actively watch and comment on this board. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As a proponent of the board, I must say that the concerns raised by sitting members of ARBCOM would give one pause before implementation. Has anyone actually asked the Foundation for a view, or Mike Godwin? It seems that this may, and I use the word "may" with due dilligence, be potentially outside the community's remit. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't ask for someone to go rubberstamp it and start it, and you'll note (upon review of the archived discussion) that I've expressed concerns about the titles (vs. numbers) of people opposed to it. What I DON'T want to do is just let this fade away into the archives while the original problem (RFRD requests posted to ANI) continues unabated. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that way, start an RfC. You've got to be kidding me if you think that the ~30 editors who commented on the aforementioned thread creates an accurate representation of the opinions of the whole Wikipedia community. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus there. There are lots of tentative supports, and the only truly certain ones appear to be about equal to those voicing concerns. There are legal implications, and there really ought to be a RFC. Status quo is fine for now, until it can be properly and widely discussed. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw assertions of legal implications, but none that were anything beyond vague fears. I saw some enthusiastic support, numerically superior, with some oddly imprecise "concerns" expressed--exactly the sort of situation where a neutral observer would be welcome to summarize the discussion and move on to next steps. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well you have a few neutral observers commenting here suggesting that the next step is an RfC. Count me in on that suggestion. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You do realize it was on

WP:CENT from September 26 until October 9? That's clearly plenty of time for input. Seeing as how no one else seems to want to address this, I think I'm going to go ahead and implement it over the weekend unless anyone can articulate a good reason to delay. Jclemens (talk

) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What? No. You've just been told by three people that an RfC is the right path. You've simply decided that you don't like that answer. Protonk (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And I just told you "Been there, done that, don't see anything to be gained by doing it again". So, since no one else was inclined to summarize the discussion to date, then I'm going to go ahead and proceed reasonably, cautiously, and appropriately, taking all the input into consideration. Want to help me? I'm going to start constructing it in my userspace, at which time there will be a concrete proposal which can be discussed. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And I still say you asked for input, got it, decided you didn't like it and are proceeding apace. You are free to do whatever you like, of course, but remember that it doesn't really have any community force. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked for input, got it, then later asked for someone to formally close the discussion and write up a consensus statement, and three additional people chimed in suggesting that more input was appropriate. Everyone is free to opine, but process for process' sake is needlessly bureaucratic. Asking for a closing statement was really a formality. I'm a big boy and can implement a proposal incorporating feedback that suggests community opinion differs from what I'd actually prefer, so in that sense, I will be acting on input that I don't like. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(od)FYI, there's already a draft at User:Access Denied/RFRDHeader. Rd232 ^talk 20:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I'll probably use that as a starting point. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's not like we need a decision, we just need someone who didn't participate to formally close the discussion and add a brief statement summarizing the results. I'd do it but I participated. I notice it is becoming harder lately to find admins to do stuff that actually requires them to write something themselves and not use some template. I have had two such requests here be ignored in the last few weeks. I ended up doing one myself since it seemed nobody would step up, and this one [5] is still sitting with no closing statement. I know it's nobody in particular's sworn duty to do this, but c'mon guys. If you can close an AFD you can evaluate consensus in other conversations.
  talk
  ) 00:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, any admin who doesn't mind being contacted individually about RevDel can add themselves to

talk

) 00:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a slightly mis-placed community poll at /Incidents#Edit restriction proposal for Rich Farmborough. Uncle G (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't much see the point of splitting the ongoing discussion from the extant thread to move it here. → ROUX ₪ 10:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally if the discussion started as a result of an incident, it's usually just left at ANI; there isn't much point in splitting it, when the incident at ANI is directly relevant to the sanction discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Preparations are underway for the annual

For the coordinators, Skomorokh 11:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Or redirect. They'll probably get deleted anyways.

11

04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The second could be speedied under A10 - duplicates content elsewhere in the enclyclopaedia. But neither has much merit as they stand.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Consider turning the duplicate into a redirect. A history merge may sometimes be in order if there is significant content forking. --TS 14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Might be time for an uninvolved admin to wrap-up this discussion, subpaged off ANI. Although it has gotten a bit messy there seems to be consensus for a topic ban.--Misarxist 11:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Except, regretfully, that an armistice has broken out between the parties and there are attempts, via an RfC, to resolve the issues that lead to the dispute. Why are "uninterested parties" so keen to have editors sanctioned? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Two merge discussions at

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached in the next 48-hour bot-enforced limit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JJB

20:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability is breaking down very quickly. Discussion was intense yet collegial over the past few weeks, but today has turned into a series of edit wars and personal attacks. I request not that some action be taken here, but that a senior editor or administrator please try to calm down that situation. NW (Talk) 19:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sfan00 IMG is not a bot. Use his talk page first before filing premature AN reports. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please create Talk:.ไทย and add {{WikiProject Internet}} and {{WikiProject Thailand}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Courcelles 05:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm requesting that an uninvolved admin close the Rfc at